Vero - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Bomber Scale-chart

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 - kept

United States Bomber Scale-chart

I know someone probably put a lot of work into this, but this is so very, er, unprofessional-looking. Found on the "Leftovers" in Cleanup. (If this goes, the sub-articles and images should go with it.) -℘yrop (talk) 05:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• I was just thinking of that thing the other day. So I did see it on cleanup. I'll trying working on the images a bit tomorrow. - RedWordSmith 05:54, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still a few bombers left to do, plus the subpages, and it's not perfect by any means, but please have another look. I think it's Keepable. - RedWordSmith 01:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless it gets cleaned up. Keep: Looks a lot better. DCEdwards1966 06:06, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Excellent concept and research. The diagram leaves a lot to be desired, but it's informative and clear, and far better than an unclear or inaccurate one however sexy it might look. So let's not delete content. Improve it by all means! Andrewa 07:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • By all means, I applaud the work put into it, but I'm not sure this should be on wiki. Andrew, are YOU willing to fix the diagram? [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I guess that's an obvious question. I'd guess that there are others who would be better at it than me, and I'm not keen on doing it while the article is on VfD as it's a lot of work. But if it's kept and nobody else has a go I will. It certainly needs work, as do many other articles. That's the whole idea of a Wiki! No change of vote. Andrewa 13:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up by the end of the VfD. --Rlandmann 09:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ...if the illustrations are not brought up to enyclopedic quality (they really need to be vector drawn) by end of VfD. Concept and content otherwise seem fine. Wyss 20:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A perfect example of something that should be cleaned up, not deleted. I don't see any urgency about the cleanup, either. The content is good. In fact, if you apply Edward Tufte's criterion, the presentation is good, too: almost all the ink is "data ink." The only objection to it is that it hand-drawn and clumsily hand-labelled. Slap a cleanup tag on it to show the world the wiggly lines are not up to the usual high Wikipedian standards for tidiness, and let it sit until someone feels like working on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment Uh-oh... the thought just occurred to me... could this be a copyvio? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Ingoolemo says he drew it himself. Given the various iterations that are in the image's file history, I'm not inclined to disbelieve him. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Dilemma: great concept and obviously a lot of work put in. Too bad the artist does not have enough coin to buy a straight-edge. I vote to keep if cleaned up - the content is worth hanging onto if it can be whipped into shape. Denni☯ 23:02, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
• Keep Informative. Since when did Wikipedia require "professional looking?" Phieferboy 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "professional looking" implies clarity. Just as wiki articles with crummy syntax and formatting tend to be tagged for cleanup, illustrations should be screened for their analogous qualities. The sketches aren't clear (and lack the fluidity of line that would make them work as sketches). They'd be wonderful as vector drawings, and almost as good if hand drawn with a straight-edge and a curve. Wyss 23:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Understood, and agreed-- increased clarity, and a scale or dimensions would improve the quality greatly. I still say Keep and cleanup. My first reaction to the page was, "wow, that's really cool," and I'd hate to see the info lost. Phieferboy 16:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an image, not an article. Suggest merging the text into the image pages, and leaving it for someone to include in a wider article on US bombers. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup. --JuntungWu 01:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. VfD is not cleanup. This is clearly noteworthy and worthwhile content -- the existing images suffice until a more professional version can be put in its place. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Dpbsmith that there's no reason to require clean-up with the 5 day discussion period. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Until there is a better quality replacement. Classic case of {{sofixit}}, imo. - Amgine 06:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. I created it when I was a major newbie. Now I really don't care either way. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 08:29, 2004 Dec 12 (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.