Talk:List of disasters

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of disasters

DELETE

• I think this is a viable entry, and should be KEPT.

• Reason For Nomination: Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes a disaster is so unspecific as to encompass any event that someone personally feels is a disaster. Notable disasters will already have articles. KWinYO 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A lot of hard work, thats good, perhaps a little more is needed to make this list into something viable. What do you call a disaster? Because I'll bet hard cash that someone else does not find your "disaster" to be one. and just how many deaths equals a disaster? 25, 50, 100, 1,000? Is the multi-car crash on the freeway that killed 7 people a disaster? and if so why not list it? Until such time as the author can get everyone to agree on what the conponents of a disaster are this list should be removed. Repost it later if things get hammered out. But as is this article is not only unmanagable due to several items that do not belong there, it is also un-necessary. A quick search will bring up the relevant articles and I'm sure they will have the date it occured on and the death toll, which is about all the list provides. Not only that but if the article is a good one, it would let the reader decide for themselves if what took place is a disaster or not. It is a nice gesture to defend someone's "hard work" but I don't recall "hard work" being the only criteria for keeping an article. KWinYO 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting, I like how you attack something that makes complete sense as a "bad faith nomination" instead of discussing the actual issue. Fact is, This is basically a list of links to so called "disasters." It does little, except show up in the results field when a search is done. Where is the content? Not one of the listings contains any info beyond how many people died and when it happened. How about we try to discuss the issues before we start attacking other peoples opinion as wrong? (Oh and for future reference, it is possible for more that one person to use my Wi-FI connection, hence my IP address, ie. "friends" I had over during the weekend, so next time you accuse me of being many users, know the facts.)KWinYO 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP:

• The current article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and in fact quite a lot of work has gone into ensuring it is not an indiscriminate collection. No doubt the criteria for inclusion could do with some tightening, but that is no argument for indiscriminate deletion of the entire article. A case can be made for splitting up the article, but the proposal to delete it seems both frivolous and insulting to those who have invested the time and energy to keeping it on track. Peak 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is not listcruft, as it is a reference for several encyclopedic incidents, not something like Ashlee Simpson's hairstyles. Also, this AfD is not showing up on the main listing of AfDs. Youngamerican 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense to Youngamerican or Everyking, but Ashlee Simpson's hairstyles are disasters. Not as bad as her singing, though. Barno 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per Youngamerican. This is a very useful part of Wikipedia. Essexmutant 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I suspect WP:POINT, and a bad faith nomination. The fact that this article has been basically duplicated by Ongoing List of Accidents was mentined in its deletion debate here. I suspect (and I may be wrong) that the newly-created user who nominated this article for deletion is the same as the anon user who is the primary contributor to the 'accidents' article. Based on this conclusion, I believe (and again, I may be wrong) that the nominator is acting along the lines of "If my list isn't good enough for Wikipedia, no such list is good enough for Wikipedia". Saberwyn 12:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Longhair 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - a very useful list JoJan 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Saberwyn 207.107.108.172 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of disasters

• Keep. Useful. --Thunk 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

• Keep - ummm, definitely keep. Useful list. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep my Gosh - this is a useful list Scriberius 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep much as I hate listcruft, this is (a) encyclopaedic and (b) a bad-faith nomination in response to nomination of Ongoing List of Accidents Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Alot of this list is personal opinion. Why are some events deemed worthy of the list and others are not? I'll provide and example...Pearl Harbor is suspiciously absent from the list, yet the Atomic Bombing is there. Who decided that one was a "disaster" one was not? Also I have noticed the no one has presented any ideas as a compromise. I am willing to be reasonable. Instead all I get are attacks because my username is new or because my IP has been used by others (which is why I changed my username). When you are ready to work towards a constructive solution let me know.KWinYO 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like someone to define the word listcruft and please cite the dictionary or dictionary site that has it, in addition to its origin and when it became a word. I would like to have proof this is a real word with a single agreed upon definition and not some made up word that "everyone just knows what it means." If that is the case I don't think we should use made up words as reasons to remove someone elses "hard work." Thank You for your co-operation.KWinYO 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "Cruft" is defined at WP:GAFD. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you Howcheng, I have never claimed this was listcruft it is in fact not listcruft. This is not a personal attack either, I have already discussed this with the forementioned "friends" who I had over this weekend and the consensus was that this list should not be here. Please Take the time to actually read my objections before you comment as I have no patience for those who ignorantly attack me. If you truely do not feel that you have done that, (Attacking) then I appologise in advance for your having to endure my many comments.KWinYO 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment/Potential Solution OK, since no one has come up with ANY solutions that we all can live with, I will extend an olive branch. I have used a considerable amount of my time to reformat the List of Disasters. I put just about everything in order of most recent item last while putting the date first. I also added more sub-catagories to further break down the list by date. I also narrowed the defination of the word disaster a bit, even going as far to write a letter explaining the decision to eliminate calling every single thing a disaster. I DID NOT take anything out if something is missing it is purely an editing error, I did alot of cut and paste so something is bound to be missing. I believe that this modification Makes the list easier to navigate and enhances its appearance. In order to maintain its neatness I put a little note as to standardize the listing format. I am willing to post it but will only do so at your encouragement. I will overlook my previous objections in order to keep some sort of list of this nature. If anyone has any negitive comments, keep in mind, that I put forth an effort to work towards a common solution. What did you do? Thank You for you patienceKWinYO 09:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Compromise is only necessary when there is division, here there is apparent unanimity. Or had you not noticed that every single entry on this page apart from your own vote and comments says keep? Even I, who am well-known to hate listcruft and prefer categories in almost every instance, am not voting to delete this list because it contains encyclopaedic content. Reviewing the list is a good guide to how cultural perceptions of disaster have shifted over time, especially in terms of numbers and nationalities affected. I'd like to see more of that anaylsis, of course, and an expansion of the discussion, but that would be hard to do without original research. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT Ok, so I agree with the fact that the criteria to get onto this page are a bit iffy.

I found it interesting as well, that Pearl Harbor was not on the list, yet the atomic bombs attacks were.

Furthermore, I'm not one to scream indiscrimination, and such. But not one incident involving Israel or anything Israel-related is on the list. Not even El Al's plane crash in Amsterdam which killed more than 50 Dutch, sadly enough. A bit strange, in my opinion.

I can think of many other examples, not including terrorist attacks that should be put on the "list", if the idea is just a large number of people killed in an unnatural way. I find it interesting that the Angola, Russian and Sudanese Air Force disasters were mentioned – where the maximum number of deaths were 50 - when the Israeli Air Force disaster of 1997 of larger proportions – 73 deaths - was completely overlooked (and proportionately speaking 73 soldiers in a country as small as Israel is equivalent to thousands of soldiers in the United States), as well as, the Dakar and Eilat sinking in 1967 and 1968 (killing 69 and 47 respectfully), went completely unmentioned. Or what is considered the largest-ever civil disaster in Israel, in 2001, a building collapsed which killed 23 and injured 300. Yet "disasters" that tolled one death or four from far reaches of the globe are noted.

Not even the Columbia Space Shuttle explosion in 2003 was mentioned, whilst the Challenger was, and the same amount of astronauts perished. However, I guess I should point out the obvious – the only difference is that Israel's first astronaut was aboard the Columbia.

Things that make you go hmmmm. I can't deny that I'm a bit skeptical about the objectivity of this article, and credibility of the writer.

• Allow me to quote myself since you obviously didn't read it..." A quick search will bring up the relevant articles and I'm sure they will have the date it occured on and the death toll, which is about all the list provides." Now tell me, how is this "encyclopaedic"? Once again I have yet to see anything here proving my points incorrect. If actually cared about this post other than to use it as a battle ground I would see here before me, an adequate list of reasons to keep this post.KWinYO 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I read the entire article, and even caught the grammatical error in the second sentence. I don't think your "quote" is relevant, since one can not know to look up something that is not included in a self-proclaimed comprehensive list. I'm not creating a battleground, and not choosing to fight with anyone, I was just speculating on the comprehensive, academic, and "encyclpaedic" value of an article with evident gaps in research (ommisions that I am aware of from my own store of knowledge - as opposed to others I am not aware of). It is a very useful article, and it is apparent that an inordinate amount of effort went into it, and that is certainly commendable. I just feel that it is important to not have such a blatant oversight (even if it is simply a faux pas) in an article you wish to be considered a consistent and reliable source of information.

Because the events regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
   • However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
   • The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

1. The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
   • As a subset of this suggestion , the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
2. Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
3. Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• discussion resumes here

I agree in many respects. For example, it seems that every single air crash in human history appears to be categorised as an air disaster, simply because when an airliner crashes it is often packed full and has a 100% fatality record, which skews it somewhat. Actually a category for air crashes would also fit the bill here since they all have articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 13:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm, Compromise.... I thought compromise was only necessary when there is a division....- Good idea. I believe that there are something like 360 or so air accidents listed all called a disaster. Reguardless of that, I offer the listings I put into a standard format (date - incident - deaths) as a start for the person who is doing the new list. I am pleased to see that some one else agrees that there need to be a few changes, rather then become standoffish and instist the article is fine as it is.KWinYO 15:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, not compromise, progress. Nobody here apart from you has voted delete, remember? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh for the love of ... Some one seems to have a chip on their shoulder. Remember that I am the one who put the aritcle here in the first place. Had it not been for that, your "progress" whould have not occured. But seeing as I can tell you feel you need to declare victory, go ahead, go nuts. Also it is worth mentioning is the fact that you changed you tune rather quickly when higher powers intervened, because until then you were singing the praises of this article. Now it needs changes. In addition, it seems you have this obsessive need to try and one-up me. So with that in mind, I await your pearls of wisdom that are, most difinitely, sure to follow as soon as you read this. So again have some fun, go nuts. - As for everyone else I don't know where this sense of ill-will is coming from, but let me once again state that I am willing to help in the seperation and merging of this article by submitting some organized entries. It doesn't really bother me either way if you want my help or not, but I thought it was at least a nice gesture.KWinYO 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, we know you are the one who brought the article here. Hence the comments above that this is WP:POINT and a bad-faith nomination. It is not necessary to come to AfD if you think an article is excessively detailed. AfD is where you think an article is fatally flawed and should be deleted, which in this case nobody but you seems to believe. The article improvement drive is over there ---> - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 09:25, 11 January 2006 (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.