Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interline travel

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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interline travel

Undefined terminology. More likened to a dictionary entry than anything else. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep My ex-wife was an airline employee. She used terminology like interline and nonrev all of the time and they were somewhat interchangeable. I think this defines what interline travel is and it does have some supporting links to back it up. - love2run —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The actual term is real. However just as stated, it better suited as a definition/term and moved to Wikitionary. Shoessss | Chat 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean transwikify not delete. For my vote see below. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is eactly what I meant. Clarified opinion. Shoessss | Chat 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwikify - Per above. Shoessss | Chat 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article about how the process works seems to be more than a definition. This apparently is one of the fringe benefits not only peculiar to the airline industry, but unusual in the sense of an employee discount available from a competing business. I can't imagine a K-Mart employee getting a store discount at Wal-Mart. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mandsford. But the article definitely needs to be reformatted. matt91486 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have dealt with formatting issue at the start. It is not a well-written article, but that suggests tagging for clean up, not for deletion. Accordingly, perhpas keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit, explaining it more fully. DGG (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly more then a dict def and very notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2008 (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.