Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airline

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The result was Keep per means of withdrawn nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest airline[edit]

Indiscriminate list of information (see WP:NOT). No qualifiers ("largest airline" by what statstic?) -- inherently POV/trollbait. Beyond that, the statistics listed have been disputed in talk. This just isn't encyclopedic content. /Blaxthos 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn -- after consideration of the points made herein, I withdraw my nomination. (Yes, I was wrong. ;-) ). Besides the snowball forming, I can now see how this information is useful and discriminant. I'm unsure of how to formally close/withdraw nomination, but hopefully a skilled admin or editor can take care of that. /Blaxthos 22:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will this version address your primary concerns for deletion?--Huaiwei 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the subject of the article falls beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, however if the community consensus is to keep the article, I think that the version you linked is much better at categorizing the information and presenting it in a more meaningful and clear way. /Blaxthos 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to claim WP:ILIKEIT, but I do. As to the nominator's suggestion that there is no one way to define "largest airline", the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc. I don't see it as a major problem. Yechiel Man 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But even if it isn't a major problem, and even if it freely admits of all the different criteria, who really cares anyway? ;-) --Nonstopdrivel 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Indiscriminate information.--Bryson 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is encyclopedic content. Per YechielMan, "the article freely admits to all the different criteria: number of passengers, number of airplanes, etc." It uses real data to show the reader the different largest airlines. This isn't just some made-up "List of tallest people in La-la-land", it incorporates real data into a setting that is encyclopedic content. The POV/trollbait and WP:IINFO concerns are nonsense to me. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't find this list "indiscriminate." It seems to clearly discriminate between the types of "largest" airlines in the world, and it backs up its assertions with reliable sources. It complies with policy. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into two new articles, "List of airlines by number of passengers" and "List of airlines by fleet size". Or alternatively merge with List of airlines. — jammycakes ^(t)_(c) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, sensible, useful. No reason to delete. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:56, 24 June 2007 (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.