Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British engineers and their patents

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. I'm completely disregarding the walls of text about the mess this discussion has become because of reverts and edit wars and what not, and am focusing only on the views expressed about the article that was actually nominated, List of British engineers and their patents. Consensus is that we don't need that one. Any remaining confusion in other article histories, can, I hope, be sorted out editorially.  Sandstein  22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British engineers and their patents

List of British engineers and their patents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · and their patents Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article prodded, but prod removed by Andrew Davidson who doesn't seem to have read or understood the purpose of the page and the reason for the prod, so here goes:

"A list of railway engineers (other engineers seem to be suspiciously absent from this page) who have one or more patents, which is not a claim to notability. This page may be useful for a British train project (do we have such a thing), as a list of potential article subjects (some of them are probably notable), but is not a valid Wikipedia article in itself (people with patents but without Wikipedia article is way too self-referential)"

Changing the title (which Andrew Davidson already did), and scope, and contents of the page until it no longer resembles the page that was prodded is of course a possibility, but then the much more logical course of action is to delete the page that was, and to create a new page, with the new title and contents. I see a WP:PRESERVE link looming at the horizon, but when there is little to nothing worthwhile to preserve, it's better to just start over. Fram (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This seems to be deliberate disruption contrary to WP:POINT. The nominator is clearly aware that the page is being actively edited and that good sources such as the following are being added to develop and expand the article. The idea seems to be to spite the original creator of the page by deleting their work but this is explicitly contrary to our editing policy, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts.".
  1. S. Peter Bell (1975), A Biographical Index of British Engineers in the 19th Century
  2. Ian Glover (2012), Engineers in Britain
  3. Robert Sharp (1993), Obituaries of British Engineers 1901-1920: An Alphabetical Index, Science Museum
  4. Derek Walker (1987), The Great Engineers: the art of British engineers 1837-1987
  5. Who's Who of British Engineers, 1966
Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, and I don't have to take POINT lessons from you of all people. Have you read the deletion nomination? If you want to create a new page listing British engineers, feel free to do so. Taking a page with a different title and different purpose, only because it is at prod and needs to be rescued, is the "pointy" violation, not the deletion nomination. I have no interest in spiting the original creator, my interest is in removing rubbish articles. An article of railways engineers with patents but without articles is not the same as a general article about British engineers, as you should be well aware of. Fram (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already, situation resolved, AfD can restart. We now have an article List of British engineers which is not up for deletion, and an article List of British engineers and their patents which is the subject of this AfD. Can we now proceed without further disruption please? Fram (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more clearly the problem? Are you saying we don't need both lists? JMWt (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this now confusing, the sequence of events may be helpful. As I understand it:
  1. Fram prods List of British engineers and their patents
  2. I remove the prod
  3. I move the article to the title List of British engineers, which seemed simpler, and start improving it
  4. Fram takes the article to AFD
  5. I respond at the AFD and continue to improve the article
  6. Fram uses their admin tools while involved to separate the page into two separate pages.
Andrew D. (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are agreeing we don't need this page, Andrew D.? JMWt (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned this is one page; a page about British engineers. This is a notable topic per WP:LISTN and so there is no occasion to be deleting anything. As Fram's action was improper, it should be reverted, before we get further confusion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we just delete this page as everyone seems to agree it isn't needed, and keep the other one. Not sure we really need to revert anything. JMWt (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's my suggestion as well. Fram (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, everyone does not agree. I don't agree and the original author has not been agreeing with Fram's deletion spree either. The list in question should be retained to provide proper attribution of the history of this topic. The engineers who patented their various inventions are probably notable and one of the purposes of such lists is to help us build the encyclopedia by producing pages about them too. I've just gotten started on this and have lots more to do. Fram should please revert the history split, which was made without consultation or consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My history split reverted your change of both title and purpose of the page, "which was made without consultation or consensus" and to score a point to boot. Both articles now have the correct attribution. That you got the idea for a list of British engineers (so far empty) from the list under discussion is quite possible but not needed in the attribution. Lists of people explicitly meant for those who don't have an article but may be notable belong in userspace or projectspace, not in the mainspace. Having a patent or being an engineer is not a claim to notability though. Fram (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of British engineers now has a bogus edit history with a misleading statement made in Fram's name: "This article was created by User:Andrew Davidson whose name has been lost in the history split." I did not create that other article; I was editing the article we have here, contents and all. The edits which properly show my actions have been obfuscated:
  • 08:16, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History split)
  • 08:17, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) restored page List of British engineers (temp) (1 revision restored: History restore for new article)
  • 08:19, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History split)
  • 08:19, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) restored page List of British engineers (temp) (33 revisions restored: History split)
  • 08:20, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) moved page List of British engineers (temp) to List of British engineers and their patents (History split) (revert)
  • 08:24, 19 November 2015 Fram (talk | contribs) deleted page List of British engineers (temp) (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
The claims made that these numerous deletions are "non-controversial" seem quite outrageous as they all happened after this AFD discussion had started. Fram should please revert their rewriting of the true edit history. Andrew D. (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G6 can be used for housekeeping and for routine (non-controversial) cleanup. My deletions and restorations fall under the "housekeeping" part. The full summary is the standard indication of what G6 can be used for. In the new article, which I attributed to you, is no attributable content from the previous article or editor left. All that remains is the inspiration you got from it. But feel free to edit the article and add an edit summary comparable to mine but with what you see as the proper attribution, if you want to have the name of the editor in the history. If you try to keep the article on AFD "because it is needed for attribution" though, then you are clearly wrong here. It should be judged on its own merits, not on the existence of another article you wrote on top of the existing one. Fram (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These actions were controversial because they were done after the AFD had started and seem intended to change the basis or outcome of the discussion. If Fram felt that such actions were appropriate they should have presented them in the discussion and then let the community comment on them to determine consensus. Proceeding unilaterally was quite improper because Fram was already a party to the discussion and their actions tended to conceal the full history of the matter by deleting numerous page versions. I have been attending AFD for nearly 10 years now and cannot recall any precedent for this. The relevant policies indicate that such action is improper. For example, WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." I think we need a truly uninvolved admin to sort this out and so I'm pinging Anthony Appleyard who has good experience of complex edit histories and is not otherwise known to me. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undeleted List of British engineers (temp), so everybody can see its edits. It has no talk page (deleted or undeleted). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I think you by mistake removed a very large part of this discussion when you replied (you probably replied to the edit where you were pinged, not to the then current version of this debate). While most of it can probably safely be hatted as more heat than light / repetition of the same arguments over and over again (and I mean from both sides), I don't think it was your intention to delete all of it without even noting it here. Fram (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text replaced by Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC):-[reply]

  • On the contrary, it were your own actions done after the ProD that were controversial and seemed solely "intended to change the basis or outcome of the discussion". Changing the title and radically changing the scope of an article = creating a new article, not improving one. Your actions very strongly give the appearance of wanting to score a point in your battle against deletions, no matter what tactics you need to use. Feel free to raise this wherever you like, but be sure to describe your own actions honestly as well. You have not yet explained how changing an article title and scope completely is the same as improving an article instead of creating a new one. You also haven't explained what the problem is with the current situation apart from some process wonkery. Is the new article "list of British engineers" a problem? I guess not, it's what you proposed. Feel free to turn it into a real list though, there are many hundreds of British engineers with articles already. Is anything lost from the old article so that it would unfairly influence the AfD? Again, no. Can we simply move on, let the new article grow and discuss the old article on its own merits? Fine by me and by the uninvolved editor who commented so far. So what reason do you actually have for going on about this apart from making your point? You created a muddy situation to rescue a prod, I cleaned it up with some IAR G6 actions which restored the status quo and gave you your wanted article. That this isn't common doesn't surprise me, normally editors don't go as far as you did in trying to rescue an article at all costs. Fram (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortening the title of the page from List of British engineers and their patents to List of British engineers was not a radical change as the issue of patents seems quite peripheral to this. What we obviously want are engineers who have achieved something and patents are just one possibility. For example, I previously started the article about the Scottish engineer Robert Thom, and expect to incorporate such people in the list as it develops. I don't know whether they registered any patents but they are covered in A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland and so are a reasonable topic for us to cover and list. In any case, I was clearly engaged in making general improvements to the article and so starting an AFD and then multiple speedy deletions was inappropriate. Please see WP:BEFORE, "please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way are you no longer able to make general improvements to the article (which article do you mean by know, the one you had in mind which is at the new title, or the one the original contributor had in mind which is at the old title and up for AfD). The "multiple speedy deletions" were housekeeping moves and history splits: all information you contributed is in the new article, all information that was in the original article is still there. Nothing has been lost, much clarity has been gained. I have not opposed your attempt to make a list of the notable engineers of Britain, your article is stil there waiting for your (or anyone's) contributions, at your preferred title. In what way is that a problem? Fram (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the way we do things here. To start at the beginning, this matter started when Fram placed a {{proposed deletion}} tag on the page in question. This tag explicitly invites anyone to do all the actions I took, including renaming the page: "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so.". Fram should please not issue such invitations and then act surprised and hurt when someone actually does as they suggest. The best way forward in my view, is to rewind all this to the point before the AFD, when I was improving the article and we weren't engaged in this vexatious wikilawyering. This might be done by Fram withdrawing the AFD nomination and then undoing all that history split stuff. If they can't hack it then an expert like Anthony can perhaps advise. Then, if Fram wants to discuss the next steps or scope of the list, they can start discussion on the article's talk page (which is still currently a red-link). Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be the way you like things to be done. I have no problem with people renaming a page to something more appropriate (like, in this case, "List of British railway engineers without a Wikipedia article". Renaming a page and giving it a completely new scope is not in the "invitation" though. I don't think you have explained yet what is the difference between what you have done and the actual creation of a new page, apart from keeping history in it which has nothing to do with the new page, and of course avoiding a deletion (the horror!). I'm not "acting surprised and hurt" though, I was and am genuinely surprised that you have sunk to such low tactics and can't get yourself to admit it. Hurt? Not really no, it's just a Wikipedia page. I notice that again (and again and again) you haven't indicated what the problem with the current situation is, how it differs from your stated goal of having a list of British engineers. You are mentioning "vexatious wikilawyering", but I have given good reasons why two pages with a different title and scope, one of them fit for inclusion but the other (probably) not, shouldn't share a history (and shouldn't be made to share a history as a means to avoid deletion, which is what you did). You haven't given good reasons apart from policy wonkery though why the current situation is not acceptable. In short, no, I won't take the actions you request and don't agree that they are needed. Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text replaced by Biscuittin (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC):-[reply]

I see a lot of heat here, but I'm still not understanding why everyone is unsatisfied by the suggesting of deleting one page and keeping the other. Why does it matter? Haven't you better things to do than personally attack each other like this? JMWt (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only Andrew Davidson is unsatisfied with that solution, not me. Yes to the rest of your post though, I'll mostly shut up now. Fram (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of List of British engineers and their patents. I propose to copy the text of the article to List of British engineers. After this is done, I would not object to deletion of List of British engineers and their patents. Does this satisfy everybody? Biscuittin (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to compile a list of people who may or may not be notable (having a patent is not a claim to noatbility), but don't have an article. That's what project space or userspace are for. Fram (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion here. I am willing to accept the solution proposed by JMWt. Fram then said: "Only Andrew Davidson is unsatisfied with that solution, not me". Now Fram seems to have changed his/her mind. Biscuittin (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. What you propose is not the solution by JMWt (delete your page, keep the list of notable engineers), what you propose is to change the new page into your old page. Fram (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Should be a category. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day 2 checkpoint

Here's a summary of where we are now at the start of day 2. We now have three pages:

  1. List of British engineers and their patents
  2. List of British engineers (temp)
  3. List of British engineers

Page 1 has Biscuittin's original text. Page 2 has that text plus my improvements in its history but reverted by Fram. Page 3 has the improvements without the original text. Biscuittin and myself seem to want page 2 or something similar. Fram and JMWt seem to want page 3 – an article without a body. My full position is that I want all this put back together as one, before the splitting started. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were interested in creating page 3, a list of notable British engineers. If you don't (and no one else takes it up soon) then it is indeed an empty page and can be speey deleted as such. Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested in developing Biscuittin's interesting start into a more general article. Page 3 is a redundant content fork with an inaccurate edit history. It ought to be deleted but that should wait upon the conclusion of this discussion as, in the meantime, people need to be able to see what we are talking about. To show the improper status of page 3, I put a {{CWW}} tag on it but Fram has reverted this. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fram is abusing his position as an administrator. He is proposing for deletion articles which he views as "ridiculous" (see my correspondence with Fram at User talk:Fram). That is a personal opinion, not a Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Andrew Davidson that the loss of article history was not in accordance with Wikipedia convention. Biscuittin (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a) Proposing articles for deletion is not an abuse of the admin position. b) I have clearly stated on my talk page that while there are pages I consider to be ridiculous (which, I hope, is my right), I have not nominated those for deletion (my first reply: "I even skipped rather ridiculous subjects", and my second reply, "I have not nominated it for deletion"). The ones I have nominated for deletion are the ones that in my opinion don't meet our inclusion policies and guidelines (no matter if I think them ridiculous or not). Most of those have been deleted afterwards by others, either as an uncontested prod or after an AfD. Some have been kept, that's the way these things go. User talk:Fram#List articles is the discussion you are referring to. Please reread it. Fram (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information, we also have List of Cornish engineers and inventors. Biscuittin (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will try again to reach a compromise. As I understand it, Fram's objection to List of British engineers and their patents is that patents are not an indication of notability. I therefore propose to move to List of British engineers only those names which have references other than patents. Is this acceptable to Fram? Biscuittin (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another complaint I have about Fram is that he seems to be edit warring with Andrew D at List of British engineers and with me at List of Busways standard vehicle types. Biscuittin (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself more with our standards, policies, and jargon. I am not edit warring at all at the Busways article, and one revert at the list of british engineers is a very minor edit war (if even that) as well. That's two times in a row that you make clearly incorrect statements about me, presumably in an attempt to discredit this AfD. Perhaps you can explain instead why a list of people without Wikipedia article is a good mainspace list subject (never mind why a "list of British engineers" only seems to consist of railway engineers, even after nearly three years). Fram (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion with Fram at Talk:List of British engineers which could be relevant to this discussion. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed several compromises but you have rejected them. You now expect me to understand Wikipedia jargon despite WP:Jargon. Biscuittin (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use jargon like "edit warring" correctly, then yes, I expect you to understand it as well. That means e.g. not pointing to pages that are not applicable: WP:Jargon is about writing articles, not about conducting discussions. But I'll make a compromise counterproposal: why don't we just move List of British engineers and their patents to User:Biscuittin/List of British engineers and their patents, where you can use it as a basis for new articles and don't have to worry about things like WP:CSC, but the work you put into it isn't lost? Fram (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to consider this but I think the other contributors to the article should be consulted. My main aim is to promote collaboration between editors on the creation of new articles and this is much less likely to happen if the article is in my userspace. Biscuittin (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other contributors, this[1] is everything that was done to the list between your creation in 2013 and my prod this month. Some cosmetic changes, not one syllable of meaningful content though. If you agree, it can be moved. If you would prefer to have it in project space instead, just suggest a location (do we have a wikiproject british railways or somesuch?), it might indeed improve the chances of collaboration. Fram (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of British engineers and their products is very useful and relevant. Engineering has been very important in Britain since the Industrial Revolution started. I should know :: I was brought up in a heavy-engineering-related household, and my father was an engineer (in the British word usage sense). I knew what ferrite and pearlite and martensite and eutectics etc were BEFORE I knew much about Noddy and suchlike. KEEP and add any more information found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)
    • Anthony, that's what List of British engineers should become, and that one isn't up for deletion. The question is whether the List of British engineers and patents, a list of railway engineers without Wikipedia articles, should be kept, deleted, or moved to user- or projectspace? As it stands, it fails WP:CSC. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, page List of British engineers and patents has never existed, as deleted or as undeleted. I take it that you mean List of British engineers and their patents. Best make all the engineers' names into redlinks, so the redlinks will prompt people who know the history of engineering into making them into bluelinks. A list of industrial engineers without Wikipedia articles would be useful as a starting point for people to know the names so they can write Wikipedia articles about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wanted articles lists don't belong in the mainspace though, but in project or user space, see WP:CSC and general practice. But thanks for correcting my link, I indeed meant the page you said, not the one I mistakenly typed. Fram (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stub-type information currently in page List of British engineers and their patents is much more useful than no information at all, and readers can follow up the external references given. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Which doesn't address my point at all, it's just WP:ITSUSEFUL. There is no evidence that this people are even notable (though some of them undoubtedly are). Fram (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is turning into a debate about Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Going back to the articles, I am quite happy to drop "and their patents" from the title of my article and merge it with List of British engineers. Biscuittin (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted Anthony Appleyard's suggestion of red links and I will continue to expand the article until a decision is made about its future. Biscuittin (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the original list. The criterion that the engineers not have articles is very odd indeed. How can you leave out someone like James Watt? A list of British engineers is fine. Descriptions of notable patents are also welcome, but not cryptic identifiers ("GB336599") and numbers ("Three patents, two jointly"). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone could see these "cryptic identifiers ("GB336599") and numbers" and look up in sources and replace them by descriptions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3 checkpoint

We still have three pages:

  1. List of British engineers and their patents
  2. List of British engineers (temp)
  3. List of British engineers

As they are all under discussion together (effectively a group nom.), I have made sure that all pages have the AFD banner and have restored the title of the AFD to its original, reverting Fram's move. Anyone interested in list of British engineers, under whatever title, should thus be prompted to join the discussion and help us determine consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And undone again. No one is arguing for the deletion of List of British engineers, and the (temp) page wil be redeleted after this AfD is finished one way or the other. Only the "patents" page" is up for discussion. This never was a group nom, and please don't try to disrupt this AfD any further. Fram (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fram's action was repetitive in nature and so was edit-warring. Aditionally, they used admin powers to delete again while involved, leaving more redlinks behind. Their comments here are incorrect. I am arguing for deletion of the page which they created as improper cut/paste (page 3 in the list above). The page currently named as temp (page 2) should be retained as the proper development of Biscuitin's original. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of List of British engineers and their patents. I have made several attempts to reach a compromise but these have all been rejected. I now try again. Let us move the article to List of lesser-known British engineers. This explains why it does not include James Watt (who is well-known). We do not need a complete list of British engineers because we have one at Category:British engineers. Alternatively I am willing, in principle, to move the article to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers but this is not my preferred option. The reason is that I want the list to be a springboard for the creation of new articles by multiple editors, not just by me. This is less likely to happen if the article is in my userspace. Biscuittin (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia doesn't like precedents, but I do, so here they are: List of lesser-known Loloish languages and Lesser known temples of the Hoysala Empire. Biscuittin (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those will have far fewer entries than a list of British engineers.
This is a very long list. It is beyond WP's editing model to make more than a tiny dent in it. Such an article, and its inevitable fragmentary nature, would not be a benefit to WP as it would be too biased in favour of games designers, pokemon creators and fictional star trek characters.
OTOH, categorization could do so rather better. DBpedia (and I know how unpopular that is hereabouts) could even write this article automatically from such categorization and the leads. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get this settled so I propose to move the article to User:Biscuittin/List of lesser-known British engineers. Are there any objections? Biscuittin (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Fram (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of British engineers is ok, the other should be deleted. I'm not fussed about what happens to the article history, it would be a useful list and filled over time irrespective of the above discussion. I'd suggest the new name should be List of historical British engineers and do a quick copy and past of any useful info. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, OK, as long as the page is moved to somewhere known, to preserve it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there have been no objections, I intend to move the page tomorrow, 28 Nov 2015. Biscuittin (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to Biscuittin keeping a copy of their work. However, the work which I did, based upon Buiscuittin's original, should continue to show this proper history while Fram's content fork, which tried to break and obfuscate this history, should be deleted. I'm not sure that Biscuittin should do anything while this discussion remains open as that's not the normal AFD process but Fram has been making unilateral moves, deletions and copies during the AFD and claiming WP:IAR. Biscuittin might follow that example but two wrongs don't usually make a right. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Andrew D. I will postpone the move to allow you to take whatever action you think necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_British_engineers_and_their_patents&oldid=1078517401"