Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeritalia G.91/Full Spec

From VfD:

Both of these articles duplicate the specifications for these aircraft set out in their main articles, only in a table form. I thought we didn't like subpages anyway in the main namespace. Delete --Rlandmann 22:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: 1. Subpages are disallowed, 2. Tables that just lay out data are of very low value (tables appended to narratives are of very high value), 3. Redundant. Geogre 00:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should also Delete Focke-Wulf Fw 190/Specifications - this was created as part of a discussion within WikiProject Aircraft as to the best way to present aircraft specifications. Since the idea was ultimately rejected, this page should go too. --Rlandmann 01:14, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, didn't realize subpages dissallowed when I made it. (The 2 i did)) Greyengine5 03:54, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

On the seperate issue of talk page.

Delete [[Talk:Lat%E9co%E8re_28]] and Talk:Aeritalia G.91 as well. The talk pages are not archives for replaced content from articles. The old data tables are still preserved in the article's history for anyone interested in accessing them. Greyengine5, please stop flogging a dead horse. --Rlandmann 04:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep Leave the talk page alone- it will be lost in the history page and its a disccusion piece anyway. I believe its you here thats 'flogging the dead horse'. Greyengine5 05:13, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain that remark? For the past month, WikiProject Aircraft participants have been discussing ways to move away from the old unwieldy data table, and eventually reached a loose consensus to replace this with providing aircraft specifications in text form.

Since then, you have tried a variety of means to try and perpetuate a dead standard, first by replacing it in the page guidelines as an alternative, then when that didn't work out for you, by placing it on separate subpages, and now, when that hasn't worked out either, by pasting them on the articles' talk pages.

The data tables are dead - let go of them. I know that you put a lot of work (good work, I might add) into designing the table, but they've had their day. --Rlandmann 05:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think its imporant to chronicle the past, and have cetainly been stymied by you in that. I admit I took that task on too lightly, and those early attempts would probably have been undid even by myself later on. At this point your 'remark' is better suited to yourself. Greyengine5 05:46, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Wikipedia automatically "chronicles the past". Just a procedural note: do not go removing pages from VfD as you've just done. --Rlandmann 06:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought I was removing it as part of our resolution on your talk page and it was ok, if thats not the case then I apologize. First of this is not about reviving a dead standard- I would have liked to have seen the new standard much sooner.

The idea is that it makes the data table, a concentration of work and info different from regular text, thats more important then other edits easier to see. Having that fade away, buried under potentially hundreds of edits and lost to wikihistory would be shame.

Aside from that, it can object of discussion for page data and information. Greyengine5 07:16, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Delete both. This is the only decision that needs to be made here. Please take debates on other matters to a more appropriate forum. Andrewa 14:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Accordiing to the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy the second issue should not have been listed under deletion as its a 'dispute over content'. Greyengine5 18:11, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree. And nor should it be discussed here. The only issue to be decided by this debate is whether Aeritalia G.91/Full Spec and Latécoère 28/Full Specs are to be deleted. VfD is stressed enough just doing its proper and important job. I considered a refactor of this discussion, but I think the consensus is clear. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion