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. CitiCat ♫ 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject, people complain about everything. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there has indeed been a significant increase in complaints filed with airlines, it's still not a notable enough subject to merit its own article. A sentence or two in the main article for Air travel would suffice. Calgary 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No more notable than Wikipedia complaints or Rush-hour traffic complaints. --Evb-wiki 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or insurance company complaints. There are laws to handle that too. Not that it matters. Non-notable subject. --Evb-wiki 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Laws exist to handle airline complaints; laws do not exist to handle Wikipedia complaints or traffic complaints. This topic is worth keeping if more information is added. 69.116.62.33 03:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear violation of WP:SYNTHCorpx 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response It's not notable in and of itself, it is notable relative to certain other subjects. I'm not even sure I'd go so far as to say that the complaints themselves are notable so much as the causes of the complaints are notable (the hassles of air travel), which again are not notable as their own subject. Calgary 06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I object to the proposal for deletion. If you search Google for "Airline Complaints OR "Airline Complaint", there are over 60,000 very specific search results. If you search the same terms within Google News, there are over 450 very specific articles. So even if you do no consider the billions of air travelers that fly every year and the tens of thousands of ensuing airline complaints, this is still notable for that reason alone. In fact, this subject matter is notable enough for the US Department of Transportation to have a specific section for "Airline Complaints". Having said all of that, this article is both informative and helpful as it stands, and will become more so as it grows. Considering the current size of the article, it is also very well referenced with 8 citations in total. "Complaints" might be a subjective term, but "Airline Complaints" within the context of an encyclopedia describes a real-world issue, especially when you consider that the Department of Transportation publishes specific Airline Complaints figures. WP:SYNTH does not apply in this case. No part of the article is original research; it is made up entirely of cited facts. Therefore, I object to its deletion.--Sidarthian 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) — Sidarthian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as a clear case of a synthesis of sources used to lend notability and verifiability as an encyclopedic subject. VanTucky(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please explain how this is a "clear case" of synthesis of sources. Most people in favor of deletion are citing this same reason without any justification. I fail to see what part of this article constitutes "original research" which is a main element of WP:SYN.--Sidarthian 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a how to, which is what wikipedia is not, enclosed within some text. Vegaswikian 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response What part of this article is a "how-to"? The article itself contains no information regarding how to complain about an airline.--Sidarthian 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expunge! Per norm. !paradigm! 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)!paradigm![reply]
Keep: The claims for synthesis of sources are inaccurate. The article uses various different sources, yet no new conclusions are made in the article itself. The article as it is is well-structured, informative, and it has plenty of room for development. The reason why so many people want the article to be deleted is probably that articles of that kind are currently very uncommon in wikipedia, yet in the modern world, the issue itself is definitely very relevant and it is totally possible to write an unbiased and informative article taking into account views of passengers, airlines and government bodies alike, and describing trends and the causes of them. The large number of google hits means that there is plenty of information avaliable in the form of verifiable resources.
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.