Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation regulations


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviation regulations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article last edited June of last year, Fails Wp:N and Lacks Sources.-- SKATER  Speak. *Merge to Aviation law. Fences and windows (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless radically improved. Unecessary list/synthesis. Hairhorn (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Second this, or perhaps redirect to Aviation law which is marginally better. NVO (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aviation law is USA-centric.--Sum (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The subject is notable, it just needs a little expansion.--Sum (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - general legal articles are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * merge I generally agree with Bearian that general legal articles are almost always notable. But why would we have distinct articles for "aviation law" & "aviation regulation?"  If aviation law is USA centric, can't we rewrite the article? Agradman (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Aviation law. Both articles are too short to stand alone, and the merger will help alleviate the US-centrism of the latter. bd2412  T 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with rewrite. All nations have aviation regulators. To this end I suggest a renaming to "list of aviation regulators", with a list of the regulatory bodies for each nation. I can start work on that this evening if anyone has a problem. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * List already exists: List of civil aviation authorities. NVO (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, List of civil aviation authorities has the names of the authorities, it needs to include the name of the published regulations. Btw, regulations and laws are not the same thing.--Sum (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely! national govts are different, but then we shouldn't try to fill many fields in the table: they might be incompatible. I don't think that publications can be easily fit into a one line, one entry format. Is it really important to the topic? p.s. cool username :)) have a good summer :)) NVO (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete plus add a redirect I would've said keep, but the article's subject already exists at List_of_civil_aviation_authorities and is far more developed there. Now that the existence of this other article is known to everyone here, do those who previously said keep or merge elsewhere, still believe that it should?  There is nothing to merge, the information already at the other article.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Dream Focus' plan, struck my previous comment. Fences and windows (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2009 (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.