Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic Airlines (1979–1986)
- 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 Move more complete article to more appropriate title per WP:ENDASH -Djsasso (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Republic Airlines (1979–1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article already exists (Republic Airlines (1979-1986)), this one just has a larger dash in it's title. RightSideNov / talk / contribs 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to the more complete article Republic Airlines (1979-1986). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Having an endash in the title is gramatically correct, Republic Airlines (1979–1986) should be deleted to clear the way for a move of Republic Airlines (1979-1986) to that page. An endash indicates a timespan, which this year-to-year series is. It's the same situation with season articles for sports (ie: 2008–09 NHL season). – Nurmsook! talk... 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep I'm confused about the first couple comments. Is there another article? Two other articles? If they're on the same topic then they need to be merged. The airline is clearly notable and was bought out by Northwest Airlines. Why wouldn't a well established airline be notable? What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same exaclt article in two places? I don't think we need an AfD to take care of that... but maybe I'm wrong? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- RESOLVED? It appears someone already took care of the redundancy as there is no AfD template and I can only find one article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- The two articles were not the same; the one with the long dash in the title was a sourceless stub and I have changed it into a redirect. That's why the AfD notice isn't visible anymore. The one with the short dash in the title is a mediocre but unoffensive article and nobody is objecting to it. Discussion now seems to be whether which title is more appropriate- if it's long-dash then we need to delete the redirect so that the content at short-dash can be moved there. Confused? Join the club. Reyk YO! 05:59, 22 December 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.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.