Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Caledonian in 1978


 * 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 merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s &mdash;αlεx•mullεr 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

British Caledonian in 1978

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and doesn't need a year by year account of every year in the airline's history Viewplain1990 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge – Agree merge relevant information into the British Caledonian article and delete this piece. To the author, appreciate the time and effort put in to this article, but better served in the British Caledonian main piece.  Thanks for contributing. Shoessss |  Chat  23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to British Caledonian in the 1970s, we have timeline articles for other subjects, why not this one. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with GW Simulations, merge with a yet to build British Caledonian in the 1970s. I don't see any rule against expanding the history of an organization, to a point that seperate articles are needed.--Aldux (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – As I stated above, I agree that the piece should be Merged into the main article British Caledonian.  However, I cannot see a new piece listed as British Caledonian in the 1970s.  The main articles length is not that long.  By introducing additional links, we are making it harder, not easier, for an individual to find a Primary source of information for this company, at this time.  ((And to be honest, from a personal point of view, show me all the information in one place.))  If the additional information, grows over time, where it becomes cumbersome or confusing to the main piece, than yes, I would agree to breaking out.  However, at this time I see no need. Shoessss |  Chat  22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that we can't insert it all in the main article; we would obviously have to cut down and remove mercilessly most of the text, and since it seems well sourced material, I'm quite reluctant to agree to such a thing. Certainly the main article needs a history section, but I don't see why we can't also maintain more in depth treatment articles, exactly like we have both Belgium with a history section and a more detailed History of Belgium, that is then splitted even further.--Aldux (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2008 (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.