Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General average/New version

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General average/New version

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an attempted rewrite of the general average article which appears to have stalled and got nowhere. There's been no merge although one editor did ask if some expert could help merge. However, the sourcing in this huge article has no inline sourcing, and reading some of the text, I don't see that merging it into the main article would actually help. Whpq (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. This doesn't belong in the mainspace, but it does appear to include sources that the main article does not, so there may potentially be something of value that can be merged there.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That might be a good option if somebody can step forward to take it on. The article really has 2 major pieces consisting of a history, and then a detailed recitation of the rules. The history might be useful for a merge if the material can be supported with sources (the refs here are not inline), but the writing is not very accessible and needs a significant bit of copyeditting. The recitation of the rules just simply looks inappropriate as material for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually has three major pieces. That should be clearer now. I've wasted a soon-to-be-deleted edit on making it so. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One might think what a grievous loss this would be, were it to be deleted — until, that is, one reads the 1911 Britannica's "average" article and realizes that this is all Britannica prose, with the top part of the article moved to the bottom. That's why it reads as strangely as it does. That the 1911 Britannica article still does a better job of explaining the subject than our article is certainly incentive to improve the Heck out of general average. But reasons for retaining this somewhere should hinge on something more than the 1911 prose, which is available directly from the source should it be needed, without need for keeping this around. Note that even the citations in the References section are in the 1911 original. Not even they are reasons for keeping this somewhere. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks Uncle G for pointing this out. For the edification of other editors who may participate, here is a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. If someone wants to use the Brittanica text to improve the main article, that's fine, but there's no need to keep this subpage around when editing should go on in the main article anyways. --Jayron32 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate -- I do not know about the subject, but it is clearly important and the present article is much shorter. Somehow the existing and new versions need to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given that Uncle G has pointed out that the article is a re-arranged copy of the text from the public domain 11th ed of the Encyclopedia Britannica, what material should be put in incubation? Anybody wanting to merge the material has one of many choices for online copies of the Britannica text, and they are even listed at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- Whpq (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.