Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IATA class 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 merge to International Air Transport Association. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IATA class codes

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

This article is nothing but a list of factually inaccurate booking classes. Booking classes are not standard across the industry, and with the exception long ago of the F/J/Y codes they never were standardised.

The first line is wrong, codes are not used for standardisation but rather to limit the number of lower fares being sold. Even the intro then goes on to state the obvious – that airlines ″use their own fare code″. This is further evidence by the line - ″To find your airline's actual fare codes, please see the airline's web site″. If the info is so wrong that we need to refer people to another site, then the information should be removed.

P is not always first class, I and Z are not always business class. The economy section is silly, it's basically the rest of the alphabet with more inaccurate claims about which codes are used for what type of fare.

I can't see any redeeming features of this article. It can only ever be a list of codes, but they are almost all demonstrably wrong. --Dmol (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom. These codes, while might be accurate for some carriers, are not for many and are not standardized for all carriers. For example: On the world's largest airline Delta Airlines, "E" refers to the lowest coach fare and not "premium economy" and "O" refers to a "Business Elite" award fare and not economy as the article claims. [1] See many other examples in the link. Unless the article's editors are committed to listing all codes for all airlines, this list is simply inaccurate without saying so and is currently serving a terrible disservice to the public.--Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article presents the "1.1 Prime Code (mandatory)" subsection of the "1 Fare Basis Code (mandatory)" section of IATA Resolution 728, which starts with "Resolved that: [...] the codes shown below shall be used". It is interesting that IATA members ignore these mandatory rules, but that should not be a reason not to report on them. (There are people who fall under the Tax Code of Russia but do not comply, but we still have an article on it.) The arguments for deletion presented thus far have no validity; we do not delete articles simply because some of the information may be incorrect. (The version of Reso 728 that I saw had no codes E and O; they also weren't included in the original version of the article, but inserted later by other editors.) Maybe it can be argued that the topic is not notable. --Lambiam 08:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The problem is not that there are some information may be incorrect as you state, but rather that the entire article is inaccurate. The fact that this list may fall under an IATA resolution is irrelevant, that is not what the article is about. The list is presented as a list of booking codes for airlines reservations (the field I have worked in for 20 years) and it is over 90 percent wrong. If I took out every error there'd be nothing left . --Dmol (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to International Air Transport Association, per WP:GNG. It probably warrants a mention there, per the single ref in the article (which is a dead link but available at archive.org). -- Trevj (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with IATA Not standaradised, not notable, a mention or paragraph in IATA would be sufficient.

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.