Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Blue

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 no consensus. Daniel 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Blue

Flying Blue (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)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I'd think that frequent flyer schemes are slightly notable, and there's no difficulty in finding third-party sources via google. DWaterson 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment One might be able to find tens of thousands of hits from google, but how many of them provide are non-trivial, third-party sources which provide notability in the context of WP:FIVE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The Google News link above points to articles from Financial Times & International Herald Tribune. Unfortunately, it's in the archives which requires a subscription. → AA (talk) — 16:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment As per below, the Financial Times and IHT also have travel sections and it needs to be demonstrated that the coverage which is given is not trivial - mere hits on google and/or google news do not demonstrate notability. --Russavia 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand about ghits and I'm not counting them but the relevant links point to subscription-based content and therefore, it is not demonstrable whether it is trivial or in-depth coverage (although the summary would indicate more than just trivial). → AA (talk) — 09:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Frequently flyer program for two major international carriers. Just a 1 second G-search and I found an International Herald Tribune article which writes more than trivial coverage on this topic. [1]. The Financial Times also appears to have several articles about this topic, but hpyerlinks are for registered members only. --Oakshade 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)--Oakshade 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment, the article you have quoted is a Dear Abby type travel Q&A column and is trivial coverage as the main subject of that article is not the FFP in question, and it is not in-depth coverage. --Russavia 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Response - WP:CORP states very clearly its definition of "trivial coverage" ; "... such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.". The coverage in the International Tribune is none of the above.--Oakshade 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Counter-response The operative words in that definition are for examples, it is by no means an exhaustive definition. Additionally WP:CORP#Products_and_services states, Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy.; neither article is too large which require this wikivert. Also, if that article establishes notability for Flying Blue, does it also establish notability if one were to start up an article Routes from New York to Andorra? That's a serious question by the way --Russavia 05:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What in the International Herald Tribune article is remotely anything like meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories? You're taking the "for examples" to completely invent your own guideline. And per WP:CORP#Products_and_services, there's too much topic specific content in the aritcle to be merged into the already arguably too-long Air France and KLM articles. --Oakshade 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Trivial in the sense that it is not in-depth coverage of the subject, but a single paragraph (i.e. a quick (incidental) mention, i.e. trivial). From WP:CORP, Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. A single paragraph in a newspaper (of which I am not doubting WP:RS) does not establish notability of Flying Blue in an encyclopaedic context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 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.