Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. Since this is a wiki, "this has never been done before" is not the most compelling argument. Although the page is novel, it seems to serve a constructive encyclopedic purpose, supported by consensus below. There is no consensus here on any move, so that is left to regular processes. Xoloz 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format
A Wikipedia-space guideline is not needed for usage on a single article. In addition. While criteria for inclusion and/or formatting may be warranted for specific articles, a Wikipedia-space guideline isn't the way to do it, article or talk subpages work fine. In addition, while I am not accusing anyone of this directly, this has been used for slight ownership issues, as being able to reference WP:ADL in disputes gives the appearance of greater weight and official sanction of largely arbitrary editorial decisions. (Check the log, it's full of 'rvt, see WP:ADL' type entries). ^demon[omg plz] 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move/Expand - While you may have a point on the single article usage, it does have application to other accident lists, especially those in aircraft articles. I would support moving this page to the WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force space. The task force is a joint project of WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Disaster management, and falls well within its stated goals and scope. The task force was only formed this year, well after the guidelines were formed, and I was not even aware these guidelines existed. And as always, I greatly appreciatate the willingness of editors to discuss deletions before going straight to the Deletion process, as it helps aleviate the impression that those nominating deletion own Wikipedia and its content - You did do that, right? - BillCJ 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense and go back to discussing on the talk page, which is the proper and accepted method for such things. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & Move per BillCJ. These guidelines deserve to stay, but not in the current place.-MBK004 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Move/Expand as per BillCJ. These guideline are useful but need to be expanded and brought within the project. Not sure why their is a problem with WP:OWN the guideline was agreed by a consensus of editors. MilborneOne 19:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Move/keep This was a carefully crafted guideline, developed through discussion that led to consensus within a project. Because this list is intended to be one of notable incidents, it is reasonable to establish such notability within a set of Project-sponsored guidelines. Because of the broad project input that crafted this, allegations of WP:OWN don't hold much water. Nom's point of the improper location is noted, and I concur...just like the holding zone, this guideline is better kept as a sub page of the list's talk page; the location would thus be: Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. AfD/MfD criteria discourage (though don't prohibit) page moves during discussion, but in this case, if the other parties involved concur, I'd be happy to move the guideline to its proper location.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This page was developed with a consensus of regular editors of the related list article, List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. It was created to help control the large and constant infusion of improper entries into the list, and to help maintain and control the eclectic formats and style. Prior to its creation, there were almost daily conflicts about each new item, regarding its eligibility, format and style. Once the guideline had been completed and agreed upon, the amount of conflict has diminished drastically &mdash; if any changes are required, or new precedents arise, they can be updated in the guideline and become applicable to all future cases as well. In short, this is an effective way to control the style, length, eligibility and format of the entries to a very active list article. There is no known practical alternative that I am aware of. Crum375 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding a proposed move, the original version was created as a sub-page of the related article's talk page. It was then moved by various admins, and ended up by consensus in its current location. An advantage of the current location is that the attached discussion area is more natural &mdash; it becomes more complex when the main article itself is a subpage to a talk page. Crum375 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remembered that it had been moved, but couldn't remember why, nor could I find the related discussion. Can you point me to it? The reasons brought up there would be pertinent here.  AK Radecki Speaketh  20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was created and shortly thereafter moved, this is one of the moves. My understanding at the time was that the point was that if this guideline has its own talk page, it cannot in itself be a sub-page of a talk page. And sub-pages to articles are highly discouraged. So this was the solution that was decided upon at the time. Crum375 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is where having it as a sub-page of WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force might be workable, as projects/task forces can and do have sub-pages. Of course, the move would need to have consensus, but I think it would be the natural location. The link on the talk page is all that would need to be changed. - BillCJ 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it can have its talk page and is linkable from the main article's talk page, I see no problem with the specific namespace. Of course we would need consensus from people who understand the various implications of each location (I am not sure I do fully). Crum375 21:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note on the earlier move. As hinted above, it was indeed because it was a type of content page, not a discussion area so Talk: didn't make sense as its namespace.  In fact, Crum375 tried to have a link to a discussion page and called it Talk_talk: which of course isn't a namespace at all.  If someone can find an even better residence, I'm all for it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep with Possible Move I think I am in a unique position here:  I have been observing the "list of notable accidents" page both before and after the creation of WP:ADL, but I was not involved in the debate over the guidelines and have only made a handful of edits to the list.  This puts me in the position of being somewhat of a 3rd party (I have no particular attachment to the consensus guidelines in WP:ADL, and don't consider myself part of this project) and yet I have spent a lot of time reading the list both before and after the changes.  And let me tell you, what a difference it has made!  The formatting is better, there are less WP:UNDUE problems (though they still exist), and just in general it is a much more useful and encyclopedic list.  Regarding the namespace, like Crum375 I do not feel qualified to comment on the implications of a move, but I don't really oppose it.  Wherever it ends up, please keep WP:ADL around, and separate from the main talk page (so that it doesn't get archived by accident or something).  It has had a tremendous benefit to the quality of this article and it would be a shame to see it go away. --Jaysweet 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a note about the WP:OWN issues...  Again, I have come in as a complete 3rd party, not affiliated with the project and not knowing anyone who works on it.  For the heck of it, I grabbed a couple entries from the "holding area", did some Googling, and crafted articles that I linked to from the list.  I had absolutely no issues adhering to WP:ADL, nobody challenged me as being some sort of outsider, and the articles remain linked.  If this was a WP:OWN issue, then an outsider coming in and making changes would expect to be challenged by the "owners" -- but I didn't have any such problem.  WP:ADL doesn't discourage 3rd parties from making changes; it only discourages people from making changes that don't match the format of the rest of the list. --Jaysweet 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — As a user with input in the creation of this article I can say that I feel strongly about it. This article has been instrumental in organizing “List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft”.  Deleting it would be the worst option, as the guidelines are very useful.  Moving it would be fine, but the article was originally at Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format, which has since been deleted (Wknight94 was responsible for this move).  I frankly don’t see any other practical options. – Zntrip 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we have any examples of someone who was reverted "per WP:ADL" that felt there was an ownership issue in place? It appears to me that the only people endorsing deletion are those who have not been involved and are surprised to see a guideline page for a single article.  I admit at first glance that seems superfluous and empathize with the original MfD nom.  But unless there is someone who has contributed to the "List of accidents" article who has a problem with the guideline, I don't see any reason for continuing this MfD any further.  The bottom line is that those who contribute to the article see a lot of value in the guideline, and nobody who contributes to the article has formally objected.  If that is true, then there really is no argument for deletion (though again, I am ambivalent towards which namespace this resides in) --Jaysweet 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Auroranorth (sign) 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We need more subpages of list pages like this, not fewer. Very very well done, I'd say. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.