Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Airlines Flight 1763

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 redirect to Jonathan Burton. Speedy close as cut-and-paste-within-Wikipedia-without-attribution copyright violation. If the Burton page should be at this title it can be moved through the normal WP:RM process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1763

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG William 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable event, per the sources already provided in the article; there was substantial coverage then and there has been continuing coverage since. I note that after starting this AfD the nominator subsequently redirected this article to Jonathan Burton. I agree that there's no need for two articles; however, I'd be inclined to think the event article should be the one to keep with the "bio" redirected. Note: This has been discussed before (and closed without consensus) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Burton.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect reverted, since we have a discussion here. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue of the direction of the redirect Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 <-->Jonathan Burton must be decided in the corresponding talk pages. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the topic passes WP:GNG, the nom has given absolutely no rationale as to why they think the topic doesn't pass GNG. As Arxiloxos elaborates, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the definition of WP:GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then it passes WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and revert as a cut and paste copyright violation of Jonathan Burton this should be reverted back to being a redirect to Burton. I would have reverted it but as a courtesy to this discussion it has been left for a moment. The current merge discussion is pointless you cant merge a copy and paste violation back into itself. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.