Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Airways livery

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. There was an overwhelming consensus that this article should be kept. Certainly, the page would benefit from reliable secondary sources but, since the accuracy of the content has not been challenged, that is an editing matter and not grounds for deletion. There was a single merge suggestion, but that can, if desired, be pursued as a separate action outside this AFD. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways livery

Is there any reason this article exists, apart from that it was split out of US Airways due to essentially being a gallery and taking up too much room in the main article? Even though it may be a 'sub article' it is stil in the mainspace, and it is lacking references from reliable sources (airliners.net is NOT a reliable source for anything) which discuss US Airways livery in any detail. The one sentence from an Afd discussion which always sits on my mind is 'The solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it'. If one must use photos on US Airways, the solution is:

Expand the history section, and remove both (TWO) photos of the A330 in that current section
Reduce the year by year timeline section from 2004 onwards
Insert images from commons in applicable sections and utilise the commons template which advises readers that there are files/media on commons related to this article.

Wikipedia is not a list of various links to airliners.net nor a fansite. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I fail to see why any airline article would need to have all of these sub-pages (fleets, airport lounges, flight numbers, flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people), non notable subsidiaries, frequent flyer programs (Aeroplan excepted due to it being listed on a stock exchange), articles relating to cabins for one airline, etc, etc) when Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines don't. Those are the featured articles relating to WP:AIRLINES, if that means anything. Россавиа ^Диалог 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-developed article showing information potentially useful to those who track airline histories, or have an interest in aviation marketing and corporate projection through graphical art. Its only primary flaw is its dependence on photographic evidence in airliners.net, but this should be correctable if it is given sufficient time. A user's disenchantment with the existance of various unrelated articles is hardly relevant to this discussion.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huaiwei --Appraiser (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huaiwei. This is valid, well-presented, and well-sourced information. It was a worthy split from the main article as it covers a subtopic in a lot of detail with a lot of images. Splitting an article should not be taken as an excuse to pick bits off it and AfD them separately. ~ mazca ^talk 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard the term "livery" applied to a fleet of airplanes, or used to refer to logos and colors; sounds like a Brit thing to me. But the subject seems notable enough, since it bears upon the corporate image of an airline. Suggest that someone might want to make a disambiguation page for livery, which has a different meaning on this side of the Atlantic (see, e.g., livery stable) then on that side. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common word to describe the paint scheme. See Aircraft livery. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to main article - This is much to insignificant to warrant having an article of its own. This seems no more significant than the fact that some of my local buses are painted with an advertisement all over, instead of having posters pasted on to them (as wen I was young). Alternately convert it into a proper article on the history of the airline (with history, not liveries as the focus. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll disclose my bias for the keep - I originated much of this article when it was a section of the US Airways article. I agree with Mazca that "Splitting an article should not be taken as an excuse to pick bits off it and AfD them separately." although I'll also admit to having done that in the past. This is well sourced, and while I will agree that airliners.net is not authoritative for discussions, I believe the photographic evidence quite authoritative. —Cliffb (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What an unpleasant screed written above (russavia). I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why this article would receive more attention and detail than equivalent articles about other companies (the El Al comparison, or more so the comparison to now defunct Pan Am). But frankly it is a poor argument to suggest that something is not worthy of the attention paid to it if a small selection of like things do not receive the same attention. 24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.