Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedbird


 * 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 as there is no consensus to delete this. The nominator advocated redirection and so, per WP:SK, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, this discussion should not have been started, let alone relisted and reviewed. Andrew D. (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedbird

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot see how this is independently notable from British Airways. This would fail WP:GNG. Redirecting this to British Airways would be a viable option. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect as to term and delete article. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to British Airways. "Speedbird" is the radio telephony callsign for British Airways. Such callsigns are not notable. Reading the article, I find the other uses of the term "Speedbird" as mildly interesting trivia, but nothing else. — Jkudlick t c s 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I favor retention of this article and commented to taht effecton teh article's Talk page. "Speedbird" is again in teh news in connection with teh September 2015 incident at the Las Vegas airport.  As the article explains, "speedbird" is not only a call sign but the name of a logo.  The logo itself is notable because long in use and connected with an internationally important company; definitely not trivia. Editors interested in art (especially commercial art and graphic design) should be consulted.  If this article is not retained, then as a fallback I favor moving the material elsewhere, as suggested above.Alfredwillis (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP, I always wondered what this was when I would hear it on air traffic control. It's interesting to hear the explanation in the article. If you heard the ATC radio recording for the 777 in Vegas that caught fire this week, you heard "speedbird". If you had wondered what it meant, this article would have told you. It's a phrase that is used thousands of times a day on ATC radio. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The speedbird logo is an important icon in the history of 20th century graphic design and the development of the corporate logo. See for example here. This article will never be long but it needs to be kept separate from the main Imperial Airways, BOAC or British Airways articles. Some of the post-speedbird trivia needs trimming, but that is a different issue. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [Update] I have now refactored the article to bring out the design aspect of the Speedbird and play down the airline side-issues, and begun the work of adding cites to demonstrate its notability. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Speedbird is independent of BA insofar as it predates BA by about four decades. Article gives useful info re its creation, and continued uses as BAs callsign. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: After an inappropriate non-admin closure was undone following a request at Deletion review/Log/2015 September 17.  Sandstein  18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why relist, why not just close properly? WP:CONSENSUS is about more than just numbers, you need to think it through too. The first few, redirect votes were made with no knowledge of the logo's status as a design icon. Since that was made clear, every vote has been to keep it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There was history way before BA so personally I think redirecting is pointless, IMHO it is notable for a standalone article, I admit it does need improving but notability's certainly there. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep borne by several companies and therefore notable independently of them. Artw (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as indicated, the word existed prior to British Airways. And, given the relatively low cost of storage, what's the actual upside of deleting it? It isn't creating clutter or problems, and it stands as a useful - if short - article. Given its daily use in aviation and its historic significance, it doesn't seem to qualify for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.61.206 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2015 (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.