Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroBonus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jreferee t/c 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EuroBonus

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

It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • KeepComment: There are plenty of sources in the Google News archives which establishes notability of the subject and therefore an article is relevant. Also, it prevents repetition of the information in the individual airline articles by having it in its own article. → AA (talk) — 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Google hits (Google news or otherwise) do not establish notability, as the substance of those hits are near on impossible to determine (can't use press releases or trivial/incidental coverage to establish notability). Individual sources need to be referenced in the article, because as it stands now, it is clearly against WP:NOT --Russavia 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't mentioned Google hits - I'm referring to the links which, unfortunately, point to subscription-based content. One of them says: "Scandinavian Airlines' Eurobonus scheme was voted best international airline programme and Alaska Airways' Mileage Plan was The US winner. ... " in a link titled "FEATURES: Starwood takes loyalty honours" from the Financial Times. It does not appear this would be trivial coverage. → AA (talk) — 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cites two sources in total, of which one is the airline (not independent) and the other is Wikipedia (not reliable); accordingly fails WP:V in its current state. Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Now Keep after some sourcing has been done, and notability is not in question, see below. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree it violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:V. More importantly, it uses WP article as reference, which apparently stands against the policy.--NAHID 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. First off, this is the frequent flyer program of a major airline, Scandinavian Airlines System. Second, the EuroBonus program has won prestigious awards, the Freddie Award has been described as the Oscar of the travel industry, and the fact that SAS did not win it in 2005 caught the attention of a major Norwegian business newspaper.[1]. Third, EuroBonus is something which is not only been of interest in the travel industry, it has attracted the attention of Norwegian political authorities as well, and the ban imposed on EuroBonus for Norwegian domestic flights has been a pretty big issue for Norwegian business.[2] [3] [4] The EuroBonus program has been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent coverage over the course of several years and easily passes notability requirements. I must also say that I am baffled at the claims that this fails WP:V, is anyone trying to suggest that this program doesn't exist? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and it appears the Swedish competion authorities have also targeted EuroBonus in 2003. They released a 206 page report on the effect of EuroBonus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The article failed WP:V not because anyone argues that the EuroBonus program does not exist, but because the article's entire content - which has been challenged with the present nomination - did not feature references to reliable, independent sources. Since you have now provided sources for at least some sections, I withdraw my "delete" opinion, but have removed all unsourced content. That content may be re-added once sources are provided. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - for reasons given by sjakkalle. I have not views the material apparently recently removed, but the presetn content looks as if it is adequately sourced. Accordingly the unreferenced tag should also be removed. However I know little of the subject. Peterkingiron 18:29, 7 October 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.