Talk:Peter Tomarken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Plane crash and "deathcruft"

If the other editors will allow me, I strongly feel the information re the plane crash is TMI as written in this article (I believe this qualifies as "deathcruft" [if there is such a thing]). The article itself should contain only the information that is immediately relevant, with the remainder included as simple "Further reading" links. RadioKirk talk to me 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't really see a big distinction between the level of detail in some sections versus others. The tracking information is probably the most objective and accurate of any information in the article and the company in question is a general authority on aviation and regularly cited by major media networks and papers as well as WP in other articles; that's notable in comparison to some of the unreferenced statements. Maybe the best solution would be to leave some reference in the article and move the radar log link, for example, to the bottom as a reference. Dbchip 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I may, the remainder of the article isn't referenced at all, and desperately needs cleanup (I've already pulled stuff that [to me, anyway] was clearly not notable). I bring up the plane crash because the level of detail strikes me as proper for a news report, but not for an encyclopedia, hence the "Further reading" link suggestion. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a fan of both Mr. Tomarken and deathcruft, RadioKirk, I don't see a problem with a detailed plane crash report here. Wikipedia is not Britainnica, thank goodness, and responds rapidly to changes in reader interest. Mr. Tomarken will be a subject of increased searching for a while, and those who visit will doubtless want information on his passing. Naturally, as time goes on, the death will be less prominently featured, and more biological content will emerge. (The historian's adage is that nothing really fascinating about a person is known before he dies.) So, I wouldn't worry over the state of things. The article changes to meet the demands of our readers, who are also our editors. Xoloz 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you that but, at the same time, it tends to promote the same kind of writing elsewhere. With all possible respect to the dearly departed (and, I was a fan of Mr. Tomarken's—very few game show hosts have done as well to make you feel like you really know them), while the searches may change, the article should not (at least, following the final results of the investigation) need to ever again. That's the beauty of offsite links. RadioKirk talk to me 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The final report from the NTSB is over a year away and will be 5-10 pages. I don't think a few paragraphs describing his unusual death is out of order and I think anyone interested in reading about it would be interested in links to supporting articles and certainly seeing the flight route and aircraft history, etc. Dbchip 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think that's what links are for; but, I'll defer. RadioKirk talk to me 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)