Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Air Lines fleet


 * 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 about merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines fleet

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

This article contains the same information as Delta Air Lines word for word and looks like all of the information has been copied from that one article. All of the info in this article can be found at Delta Air Lines. Spikydan1 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The reason I created the article was to reduce clutter on the Delta Air Lines article, especially now that Delta has bought out Northwest. Because the table would be huge for the combined fleet, I think it deserves its own article.  I have restored the Northwest fleet on the article in a separate section, but soon we will have to combine the two tables into one.   ANDROS1337   14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a legitimate daughter article. The information can obviously be removed from the main article.  Grsz  Review!  15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The information is all found on the delta page, but, if anything else could be added to this article to make it better, I will change my !vote. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's big enough and important enough to warrant its own article. JodyBtalk 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable information. The detailed info should be removed from the main Delta article. Borock (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Delta Airlines is clearly becoming too long, so having a spin-off article is completely acceptable (as long as the info is taken from the main article and a link to the new article is left in its place). - Mgm|(talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As this section is obviously getting too large for the Delta Air Lines article, it needs to be moved off to a separate article as to not disrupt the Delta Air Lines article. ThePointblank (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article as it is appears to be a copyright violation (and possible G12 candidate), being copied directly from the Delta Air Lines article without any form of attribution as required by the GNU Free Documentation License under which the material was released. This could be easily fixed by the user who copied the information providing attribution by linking to the parent article's history or requesting some kind of history merge (or splice ?). Guest9999 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is violating copyright. Copying contents of another article is not a copyright violation at all.  Reading G12, it says that users should verify that the suspected source of copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.  Therefore, there is no copyright violation at all.   ANDROS1337   16:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right in that practically it is not a G12 candidate (that was - probably unwanted - speculation on my part) but as it is the article is a copyright violation. Effectively what has been done is the same as a cut and paste move, there is no attribution to the original authors (and copyright holders) of the material as required by the GFDL license under which the content has been released. See Copyrights, Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and Reusing Wikipedia content for more information. Guest9999 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe blanking the page and making move proposals for the two fleet sections to be moved to Delta Air Lines Fleet would be a good solution for now? That way, editors can weigh in on if content or what content should be moved at those proposals. Right now almost everyone agrees that the page should not be deleted and that the information should be expanded on or partly removed from the Delta and Northwest page because they overlap 100%. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the copyright issues all that would really be required is for the user who moved the material to give a link to the page history of the parent article with a short explanation of the move - this is normally considered an acceptable means of attribution in these circumstances. Any move discussion would be independent of the copyright issue. Guest9999 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The information found on the page can also be found on the Delta and Northwest page. No one would want to read the same information twice. And I agree, the Delta Air Lines article is becoming too long. When the airlines become one, the fleet on the Delta page can be removed and the merged fleet can be on a seperate article. Cashier freak (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back to main article but prune: much more detail appears here than is needed in an encyclopeadic article. The information will need to be regularly maintained, something that cannot be assured in WP.  Accordingly, the right place for this infomation is on a comapny website, for which the main artilce can provide a link.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thing to remember: the Northwest fleet does not belong on the Delta page or the Delta fleet page because they have not combind services and they most likley will dump a lot of aircraft when they do merge (That could be 1-2 years from now)...So really the Delta Air Lines fleet page is really twice as long as it should be right now. Spikydan1 (talk)


 * 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.