Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of airport IATA codes

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 International Air Transport Association airport code. Editorial consensus can determine whether to merge anything. Sandstein 20:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of airport IATA codes

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

This article only contains trivia about IATA airport codes, and should be deleted per WP:IINFO. Not a notable topic, and cannot be objectively and reliably sourced. SSTflyer 12:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of non-notable information. Could maybe be included as a parameter in {{Infobox airport}} (in the same way that {{Infobox radio station}} has call sign meaning) but I can't see much of a need for that. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 14:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Air Transport Association airport code, which has better history and info on these codes. A simple WP:BEFORE search shows interest in origins and publication about these in reliable sources. I am not sure that there is enough for notability of the etymology in particular, but verifiable information is out there. There is better information about origins and IATA naming conventions, however, in the International Air Transport Association airport code article. The main reason to blank this article is that it is redundant with a better article. I consider the topic a reasonable search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is enough in the main IATA codes article and leaving this wordy title as a redirect is pointless. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing to actually suggest keeping or redirecting at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is only partially covered in the main article. I think it's clearer as a list like the present one than incorporated into paragraphs, but at any rate it certainly shouldn't be a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While a simple redirect would be okay, I agree with DGG that this current article is not enough for a standalone, but does contain information which could improve the main article, International Air Transport Association airport code. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of consensus, I would be happy with a merge as well. --Mark viking (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (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.