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

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 keep. John254 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Keep per DGG and possible split. Appears to be encyclopedic but needs additional references showing how up to date the numbers are. Re the split, there are "List of largest airlines in X" for Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania. Perhaps North, Central and South America could be split off and this main article becomes "world + disambiguation". Dbromage [Talk] 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable from multiple sources and of wide interest. Wikisource is obscure, so if it was there, hardly anyone who come across it, and it would most likely not be regularly updated. Brandon97 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - All verifiable and encyclopedic. This is the kind of article that makes an encyclopedia stronger, not weaker.--Oakshade 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Oakshade. As one wise philosopher once said "Perfection is not achieved when nothing more can be added — but when nothing more can be taken away." Not that I'm using this as a basis for inclusionism, but it fits the mood here. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have discovered that there is a very similar article under the name, List of largest airlines by category. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Pdbailey already mentioned. Cool Blue^{talk 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]

OK. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree that it is multisourced and verifiable. It is also encyclopedic. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Harry. - TomKat222 17:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - The article is a list and should be identified as such. Also, the "The World's X-est Y" naming format isn't really Wikipediaesque. --Agamemnon2 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — My reasons: * You cannot copyright facts. This includes numerical facts * If the article is lacking explanitory text, this is a request for improvement, not deletion * It summarizes useful factual information in a way not easily located elsewhere * I like this page;  :) * Fudoreaper 00:38, 24 August 2007 (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.