Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Airline Holding Companies


 * 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. Initially closed as "no consensus". After discussion with another admin who was about to close the article simultaneously, close has been amended to "delete". MastCell Talk 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Airline Holding Companies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

If we really need this aticle, it could be a small section of holding companies. Article contains at least one copyrighted picture. Without references likely is WP:OR. No support for keeping the article on WikiProject Airlines. Also duplicates, in a very reduced form, material already contained in the articles on the US holding companies. We already have a category that covers the US holding companies so a list is not really needed especially if it simply duplicates material in other aricles. Vegaswikian 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not every detail needs a list to document it. I like how most of the list is just the airline logos plastered everywhere at like 1000 pixels. Axem Titanium 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I must say I have to disagree with you.

This article has a need for so many passengers and wikipedians seem to be confusing airline marketing brands with airlines.

We no longer no who we are actually flying upon any more and what company owns what. This article makes the information concise and could benefit from other people imput, for it is quite a large topic. For one person alone to cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.146 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is clearly already covered in the airline articles and the holding company articles. Why do we need a partial list to cover in less detail what is already covered in articles?  The category we currently have also simply lists the holding companies and can be expanded as needed.  Wikipedia is not a travel guide where there might be more interest in travel related topics. Vegaswikian 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's an appropriate fork from the US holding companies list, and if it's globalized it can stand on its own since airlines are a major worldwide industry. Once the introductory OR is cut I think it'll be OK. Wl219 23:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and limit the logos to a standard size, its an excellent navigational aid. Lack of references isn't the same as OR, and I don't see any pictures, just logos. Calling this a travel guide is a stretch of the imagination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The articles on the airlines and/or their holding companies are a better place for this information. -- Hawaiian717 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a tiny amount of information in the prose belongs at holding company as it applies to all types of companies. The rest, delete it, information is amply provided by the use of categories, in addition to it being in violation of WP:V and WP:OR, which is evident in the inclusion of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. as the holding company for Great Lakes Airlines, whereas in actuality, it appears that Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd is d/b/a (trading as) Great Lakes Airlines, and this does not fit the definition of what a holding company actually is. I believe that the inclusion of Southwest is also dubious, as again I believe it is Southwest Airlines Co. d/b/a Southwest Airlines. Additionally, Category:Airline companies of the United States should be renamed to Category:Airline holding companies (to take in the entire industry on a worldwide basis), as it is somewhat erroneous as the airlines themselves are companies also, and are not included in this category. --Russavia 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge notable companies into appropriate articles. Some are verifiable, but to put all airline holding companies (which are not notable enough for their own article) into one huge article is unmaintainable. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that all of the listed holding companies are already covered in an article if they are notable or mentioned in an airline article. So for the companies, there is nothing to merge. Vegaswikian 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a great visual representation of the companies, as a whole. If you wanted to view information about different airline holding companies, you'd have to read each article, and do a lot of research. But this puts it all on one page for you. As for those who think it's WP:OR...so add your own info to it, edit it to make corrections, and provide refs if you have any. It's not an essay of original thought...just a collection of information without references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotboi (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It may put it one one page, but it also is not complete and there are errors. Having the data in two articles means that the information will not be updated in both places on a timely basis. Most airline article editors are not likely to spend time finding this article simply to update it.  The intro is purely WP:OR and very inaccurate.  The category is a better place to find these.  That will get you to complete and current information for each company.  Also, how large would this article become if the missing information was added?  It is already larger ten recommended for a single article on this wikipedia. Vegaswikian 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that the separation into basic and complex holding companies is apparently totally arbitrary and OR. Vegaswikian 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this is a valuable resource that could just use some cleaning up. There doesn't actually appear to be any violations in the current article. If any come to being, why not discuss those violations and change them via proper protocol. Deletion of an article that is appropriate because of want of corrections is not warranted. Alyoshka 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - What the article contains is very informative and interesting, the problem is that it is a serious mess  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  22:12, 7 September 2007 (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.

This would have simplifed wikepedia if kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.148 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)