![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was this page move the right thing to do? I think "Norwegian" ought to be part of the title of this article. __ meco ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of discussion was carried out reaching a concensus on deletion of this article. Somebody inquired as to why I said that wikipedia is not a Scandinavian newspaper. The reason is because it is not!! It is obvious to me that the article has been hi-jacked by those without a balanced point of view. As we Aviation editors try to keep the project in perspective, it is annoying to see our efforts tossed away without a thought. The article is about an aircrash then WP:AiIRCRASH should hold sway and if it is'nt policy for Aviation accidents then it should be!! I think that we acquitted ourselves admirably by not getting in a bun fight and sticking to facts instead of fancies. Petebutt ( talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the AfD discussion, the crash sparked political debate in Sweden regarding the relationship to NATO. I think we should try to add this, if it can be done in a neutral way. There's a lot of opinion pieces, but those aren't, as such, good sources. Should any reliable source summarize the debate when it starts to vane, it would be nice if we could find said source and use it here. / Julle ( talk) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Was this page move the right thing to do? I think "Norwegian" ought to be part of the title of this article. __ meco ( talk) 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of discussion was carried out reaching a concensus on deletion of this article. Somebody inquired as to why I said that wikipedia is not a Scandinavian newspaper. The reason is because it is not!! It is obvious to me that the article has been hi-jacked by those without a balanced point of view. As we Aviation editors try to keep the project in perspective, it is annoying to see our efforts tossed away without a thought. The article is about an aircrash then WP:AiIRCRASH should hold sway and if it is'nt policy for Aviation accidents then it should be!! I think that we acquitted ourselves admirably by not getting in a bun fight and sticking to facts instead of fancies. Petebutt ( talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the AfD discussion, the crash sparked political debate in Sweden regarding the relationship to NATO. I think we should try to add this, if it can be done in a neutral way. There's a lot of opinion pieces, but those aren't, as such, good sources. Should any reliable source summarize the debate when it starts to vane, it would be nice if we could find said source and use it here. / Julle ( talk) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)