Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airlines (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TomKat222 (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 23 August 2007 (Added new entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

World's largest airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

there are two possible reasons (1) WP:NOT#STATS which states "Statistics. [...] In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic.[...]" (emphasis mine) (2) another user on the previous deletion (where I failed to fill in this reason text) discussion page claimed that the article was well cited to one source. If the source's primary copyright regards this same list, I don't see how this isn't copyright infringement. Pdbailey 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the above, it's a great article for Wikisource, assuming that license is allowable. Pdbailey 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the first pass at this deletion nomination it was suggested that the article be renamed (see top), A problem with this is the existence of the highly similar List_of_largest_airlines_by_category, for more on this, see the talk page of the nominated article. Pdbailey 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although the list would certainly benefit from more explanatory text, I believe it currently has enough to avoid being purely a page of stats which is "confusing to the reader". The section By fleet size in 2007 appears to reference other Wikipedia articles wihch should be corrected, while referencing elsewhere seems reasonable. Suicidalhamster 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a sentence from the excerpt in the "reason" which was unrelated to the reason I gave but contained the above quoted text. Pdbailey 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some lists are encyclopedic, and this is a good example. The information is presented in valuable ways that could not be done in a category, one of the basic considerations, and the material is important. DGG (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, can you give an example of what might be "primarily comprised of statistical data" and you would say is not encyclopedic? Pdbailey 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which Pdbailey already mentioned. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that article has already been redirected to this one as a result of a deletion request. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]