Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline complaints (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 Gnangarra 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airline complaints

Airline complaints (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Deleted once, deletion review result was to relist but that was not done.

Airline complaints are complaints about airlines. That, plus some factoids on complaint rates, is about it here. Oh, and a section which implies that the Aviation Consumer Protection Service is the official Government complaints body - no it isn't, not where I live. Someoen has forgotten that USA <> world. But that's a minor matter.

There is nothing here that is not either original research, generic, obvious, or could be covered in another article. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge I think there is some potential for there to be a good article on this topic, but it needs a rewrite. Darkcraft 11:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete DRV really blew this one - This is synthesis Corpx 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is about the formal complaint process not just generic "complaints about airlines". It is reasonably well sourced, and in its current state contains informations about UK and EU bodies as well as US. Needs improvement not deletion. Eluchil404 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be quite a major WP:SYNTH/WP:OR job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As I argued in the previous AfD, it is simply WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Referenced and it's an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The WP:SYNTH issue has already been discussed previously and it has been shown that it does not apply to this article. If you disagree, please explain specifically how it applies if mentioning it as a reason for deletion. You will have difficulty doing so since no part of this article is Original Research, a main component of WP:SYNTH. Regarding WP:NN as a reason for deletion, it is also incorrect since this is, in fact, a very notable subject matter. This subject matter is notable enough for the US Department of Transportation to have a specific section for "Airline Complaints" and for them to publish specific Airline Complaints figures, therefore meeting the "Significant Coverage" criteria of WP:NN. Considering the current size of the article, it is also very well referenced with 10 citations from highly reputable sources, meaning it is "Reliable" for the purposes of WP:NN. If you search Google for "Airline Complaints OR "Airline Complaint", there are over 60,000 very specific search results from very reputable sources and if you search the same terms within Google News, there are over 450 very specific articles, also from very reputable sources, therefore meeting the "Sources" criteria of WP:NN. Since most of the sources are "Independent of the Subject", this subject matter also meets the 4th and last criteria for WP:NN, completing its notability. As for the article itself, it is both informative and helpful as it stands, and will become more so as it grows. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, and that's a prima facie reason for keeping it. At the end of the day, there is no real justification for deletion.--Sidarthian 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Isn't there an agency of the Federal gov't tasked with handling airline complaints? SolidPlaid 03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Blank and start over Poorly written article that imparts a little bit might be replaced by something that has a lot of information in 10,000 words or less and might cite to some published cites to a lot of internet sources that would be don't make it any more worthwhile. Mandsford 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are just content and WP:STYLE issues, not notability ones. --Oakshade 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a notable topic. It just deserves better than this. Mandsford 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So you mean, Keep and Rewrite, not Delete.--Sidarthian 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you persuaded me. Mandsford 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of Sidarthian's arguments that the subject is in fact notable--the title is a little unfortunate. DGG (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2007 (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.