Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational flight plan

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 Flight plan. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational flight plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicative of flight plan (and flight planning). I initially redirected this to flight plan in November, but was reverted by the article's creator last month. This article is little more than a dictionary definition of the subject, and I see no evidence its continued existence is justified when it can easily be incorporated in either flight plan or flight planning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Effectively the same thing, best to keep content from both pages LemonberryPie (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• These are two different things.
  In the official wiki system launched by EUROCONTROL these are two different articles: OFP and FPL.
  In the US, OFP may be called CFP.

  Examples:

• • Backing up your argument with a wall of gibberish is not the route to take. Demonstrate with cited sources from which an article can be written, what the subject is. Where's a book that explains this, and where in the book is the explanation, for example? Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've collapsed your giant wall of text. Please do NOT add any more examples. That phone number may need to be oversighted as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about OS, but I've removed the possible PII and RD'd it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as more or less duplicative of other articles. The Generic Content section is essentially a CLOP of [1] (linked above); the lead doesn't even say what the subject is, just some vague indications about what one could do. The two links given by Leksey essentially confirm that this is the same thing as a flight plan. The article as it stands is worse than a dictionary definition and I don't see anything worth merging – in fact, I am concerned that this might have to be deleted for copyright reasons. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to flight plan. Broadly speaking, I agree with Toadspike; the concept is a useless WP:CONTENTFORK of flight plan, but since the article is written like an introductory section in a flight training manual and may be plagiarized, rewriting it in encyclopedic fashion and merging it strikes me as a waste of time. Carguychris (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2025 (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.