Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-52 Stratofortress trivia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was keep, with a suggestion to disband the article. Three competing views are present in the discussion. The first is that the page ought to be deleted per WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. The second is that the page ought to be kept in order to divert unwanted additions away from the main B-52 Stratofortress article. Though this argument does not have any direct basis in policy, it is in this particular case supported by a consensus reached through discussion at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Triva, features. Thus, I do not feel that it can simply be discounted. The third view is that the content of the page should be retained (in part or in whole) in some form, though not necessarily in this article, mostly based on the argument that much of the content is not trivial.

All things considered, there is consensus to not delete the article. However, based on the comments made, I feel that there is support for "disbanding" the article. By "disbanding", I mean scattering the individual parts of the page and converting it into a redirect. There is no consensus for any specific course of action, so I will list some of the suggestions made in the discussion. Which one or ones is/are eventually chosen is up to editors' discretion.

  • Trim and merge back into the main article. If recreating the "Popular culture" section is not desirable, perhaps certain information (e.g., "preserved specimens", "crew accomodations", "technical aspects") could be integrated into the main text of the article.
  • Split into a List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses and a popular culture article.
  • Split off some of the content into an article titled List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses.
  • Rename to remove the word "trivia" from the title; suggested titles include B-52 achievements and milestones and B-52 Stratofortress in history.

(Note: The suggestions are listed in decreasing order based of the extent of modifications required; however, keep in mind that less significant changes do less to satisfy the concerns raised in this discussion.) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-52 Stratofortress trivia

B-52 Stratofortress trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

just a page full of trivia, which shouldn't be anywhere in the first place, violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Dannycali 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge what can be merged with the main article, and move the list to List of surviving B-52's. That said, there are a lot of {{citation needed}} templates on the article. It will be hard to save very much. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into main article, and take out bullet-point format. Most of the information in 'trivia' is actually non-trivial information and should be part of the main article. Capmango 04:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - main article it too long as it is. Editors should have the option of splitting of info if necessary, even if it contains the word "Trivia". - BillCJ 04:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Just because the main article is too long is not a reason to keep this article. Trivia articles are discouraged here, several have been deleted as of late, including one on John Lennon. Dannycali 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - main aritcle too long... similar problem with the B-29. Suggest remaining aritcle to "List of surviving B-52 Stratofortresses", like in the List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses and move the Pop culture section below the main list section, move all "uncited" to the Talk page for further research, and have a Trivia section for all cited trivia. LanceBarber 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and cleanup. Except for the Popular Culture section, most of it is not trivia. Clarityfiend 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • merge/delete - content is non-notable, already in main article, or belongs elsewhere. and some phrases are lifted straight from military.com [1].user:GraemeLeggett 1/7/2007
  • Split and clean-up. This could be split into two separate articles - a popular culture article - which the B52 probably warrants - particularly films like Gathering of Eagles - which was almost an advert for the B52, and Dr Strangelove, where the appearance of the B52 is Notable - and described much better in the main article, and a list of survivors article similar to the B29 one. Bringing these two parts back into the main article would make it unmanageable in length. Nigel Ish 13:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please don't suggest that this trivia fork is kept or split even further. Most popular culture articles are deleted, and the Dr. Stranglove one was. Dannycali 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Things like "Big Ugly Fat Fucker" shouldn't stay in the main article :). --Eurocopter tigre 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename Everyone seems to like this article. It's too big to merge back into the original B-52 article... in fact, it's too big in this form too, since a list of B-52s on display should be its own list or part of an article about bomber exhibits. However, it's a mistake to use the word "trivia" to describe the information, only a little of which seems to be trivial. I'm not sure what synonym you could use to incorporate this, other than "B-52 Stratofortress in History" (which is different than "History of the B-52").
  • Keep - split off from the main article to minimize pollution of an otherwise evolving and sourced article with constant additions of unsourced trivia. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Should note that this user created the article, and spilting off crap/trivia from an article into another is not a reason to keep this. Dannycali 05:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Until Wiki starts to appreciate editors who do honest work and makes an effort to protect their contributions from swarms of idiot children, creating crap magnets is an effective strategy. Members of WP:Air are interested in creating the best possible aircraft coverage on Wikipedia, thus I fail to see how that creates a "conflict of interest." Finally, merging the uncited and anecdotal information in would significantly degrade the quality of the main article. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - split off the lists into their own articles and possibly rename the article something like "B-52 achievements and milestones" or something like that. Other than that, this info is certainly relevant and worth keeping and doesn't really fit in the main article very well. — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment By looking at most of the voters profiles, a majority appear to be part of the aviation wikiproject, which shows somewhat of a conflict of interest in the discussion. I put the article for AFD as it is just a page full of trivia. This is not what WP is about. Look through WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA, as this article fails both of these standards, and more. Trivia has no place on WP, and many pages full and based on trivia have been deleted in the past and will continue to be deleted. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this "article". Dannycali 05:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back with the main B-52 page and change the format a bit. Much of the information here is indeed valid, information about preserved specimens is valid for aviation history coverage (there exist books about aviation museums), information about the crew accomodations are valid, and some of the technical aspects are clearly relevant to covering the aircraft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this info is certainly worth keeping and doesn't fit in the main article very well. Piotr Mikołajski 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but with a proviso that significant details should be reincorporated into the main article. FWIW Bzuk 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep but reorganize somewhat (that display list to the end) and maybe rename - not all the information is trivial Johnbod 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete by WP:NOT#INFO. Subject alone is not notable. Keeping it because the main article is too long is not a legit reason. Calling it something other than "trivia" is just covering up what it really is. Sure, some of it could be formed into a "in Pop Culture" article, but a lot of it would need to be cut. "Achievements and Milestones" would just be a euphemism for "trivia". The information might be interesting, I'm not a nut about planes and it is still interesting, but that does not make any of it notable or worthy of an article. If any of these factoids were important to the B52 then it would be incorporated into the main article. Tdmg 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is a clue in the name. Trivia has no place in an encyclopedia.ALR 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there was a good reason to split this off. There's a lot valuable information here but too much to fit in the already very large B-52 article. --Denniss 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Just because a portion of an article has overgrown should not mean it can violate the rules and guidelines. Delete per WP:TRIVIA Corpx 22:03, 7 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.