Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planeguage

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planeguage

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

A description of videos shown on board Delta airlines doesn't - as far as I can see - satisy WP:N CultureDrone (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination, unless multiple reliable sources can be found to establish notability (which couldn't possibly happen). --Russavia (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I looked for sources on Google and they all looked like blogs or self-published, none were reliable third-party coverage.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - When a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it DOES satisfy WP:N because that is the core criterion of WP:N. Sources from MSNBC [1], and USA Today / Associated Press [2] are just a couple reliable independent sources about this topic that were found with only a few seconds of searching. --Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While it technically passes WP:V and WP:RS, it's really marginally notable. One cited source pans and and one gives kudos. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Consideration for others is something to be encouraged here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but rewrite from sources. It does seem to be just barely notable, in a "new thing airlines trying" sort of way rather than being intrinsically important or well-done. I'd hate for our article to be nothing more than blow-by-blow summaries of all 25 PSAs, which it threatens to be. --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung. Wexcan  Talk  19:29, 16 February 2008 (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.