Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline booking ploys

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline booking ploys

Does Wikipedia really exist to show people how to fiddle the system? Especially when the article says (and I paraphrase) the main airlines don't like people doing this? Francs2000 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Indeed, this article raises ethical questions, but I don't see a big difference between this and an article about DeCSS, for example. I think this article gives a balanced view, and underlines the fact that these methods are shady at best. Bardak 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since the article does mention the downfalls of attempts to game the system. (Indeed, I've worked for employers who have done things like back-to-back ticketing.) The article could probably use an update, though, since a majority of air travel done these days is via E-tickets, and the traditional flight coupon seems to be a thing of the past. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. How is this topic encyclopedic? GT 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see how this article wouldn't be original research ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think that we should have an article on this, but there are copyright issues involving the link provided - see [1]. -- Mithent 01:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• I believe that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject (the best start to such an article would by making it about such tactics as opposed to a how-to on such tactics. Howver, at this point in time, the current article is not in parallel to my beliefs. I would not be qualified to contribute to such an article, and would not shed any tears either way. -- Saberwyn 12:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am the originator of this article. This article is my first full contribution to Wikipedia. So far I have only done minor fixes under an anonymous identity. I was much dismayed to see that the article has been tagged with an AfD flag only seconds after its completion and somewhat in disregard of WP:BITE. But I guess this is now as good a forum as any to discuss it.

Originally, I started this article thinking that the subject is in the likeness of Pyramid Scheme or Creative accounting and should be covered by Wikipedia, and having thought that I am ripe enough now to be capable of achieving the feat of contributing a full article. Apparently, this was not the case, as can be seen from some of the above statements made by fellow users.
I agree with the comment made by Saberwyn that a good, externally verifiable article could very well be written on this subject. I can try and improve this article myself so it meets such standards, but the time might not be right for that just yet.

However, some of the claims presented here were unjustified, in my opinion. Minor ethical questions would have more properly been discussed on the talk page, and not immediately under an AfD. As for the article being original research, numerous sites discuss the matter thoroughly, as can be seen from a Google search.

In conclusion, I propose this article be made into a stub. --Bardak 22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I and the others who have voted to delete appreciate the time you took to make the article and your initiative in deciding to do it but we just disagree that such a topic even deserves an article at all. Personally my reasoning is that almost any system can be gamed and exploited. It should be obvious that the same is true about the air travel industry. To that end the topic itself simply doesn't merit an article, and the fact that the article ends up being basically a how-to guide kind of reinforces that for me.

If the article gets deleted please do not feel discouraged. You might want to consider finding other existing articles and seeing how much of this article fits into them. GT 08:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are ethical issues in there, but I believe the article should be expanded upon (and put into the appropriate ethical frame), not deleted. Strong Keep --Ramdrake 16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Distasteful subject matter is not grounds for deletion. FinFangFoom 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nothing wrong with this. Wikipedia is not censored. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2006 (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.