Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8888-8888


 * 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   delete. Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

8888-8888

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the long-term interest by media required by WP:EVENT. I was about to merge it into Sichuan Airlines when I figured it was just too trivial. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per Arxiloxos. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. There's not much here, but the information and the BBC source would fit neatly at Numbers in Chinese culture, where this is already mentioned, but without as much specificity and without sourcing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is nothing of particular value to merge. The numbers article already explains that the number is lucky and the claim that is the most expensive number in the world is not accurate. This is not a notable topic that could ever be made into a full-length, useful article. the statement about 8888-8888 at Numbers in Chinese culture has the ref because I just added it. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Repurposing the material from this article at Numbers in Chinese culture without merging and giving attribution strikes me as borderline under Copying within Wikipedia; it may or may not be strictly required under the guideline, but I don't see downside to formally acknowledging the merge, keeping the redirect (per WP:CHEAP) and preserving the attribution. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the content is so trivial that it might easily get deleted later per WP:TRIVIA, in which case we have a broken redirect. Also User:Swollib, who originally created the article, states on his user page that his contributions should be considered public domain, so there might not be a copyright problem at all. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What material needs to be copied from this article? Nothing has been merged. I modified the content of the numbers article based on the BBC article linked at the end of 8888-8888, not based on any of its content as written. Nothing has been copied or paraphrased except for the BBC world news article and that is duly cited. If someone wants to modify Sichuan Airlines I suggest they refer directly to the BBC world news article as well and cite the ref. There is no copyright problem because nothing has been copied and nothing needs to be copied. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether or not 8888-8888 redirects somewhere is a separate matter. This is a deletion discussion. Once the page is deleted anyone can create a redirect or not, or argue about where to. Since we're on the topic though, my opinion is that the redirect is totally not important, but I'll go with WP:CHEAP and support redirecting to either Sichuan Airlines or Numbers in Chinese culture. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete- The article's information is not relevant to the airline and therefore should just be outright deleted. 108.56.240.224 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a documented fact about the airline why is it not relevant? Borock (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be of some importance to the airline, but not worthy of having its own article. This little piece of information does not have enough of an impact to merit its own article.108.56.240.224 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivia. Every single fact in the world does not need its own article.  If you like mention it in the other articles suggested, but it's far from being encyclopedia worthy. Borock (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2014 (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.