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. --Ezeu 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airline destinations[edit]

The logical conclusion to this page is a list of every airport in the world. IIRC MS Flight Simulator 2000 had over 20 000 airports, so draw your own conclusions. Insane cruft! Dave 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We've already got Category:Airports and several lists of airports. We don't need this...I'm not sure what a good redirect might be...maybe List of airports? -- Scientizzle 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. A category is not a list and a list is not a category. The article serves several purposes. One is a list of airports that have had commerical service and not all airports. This is covered in the intro. The other is a source for listing an airport in other articles. Because of location and naming issues, it is not possible to create a guideline that covers this. So this list functions a source for this information. It also serves as a common point on the location of an airport in other destination articles. The order in this article is still being adjusted after several months of discussion as consensus is achieved. Vegaswikian 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Vegaswikian. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to List of cities with commercial airline service or List of airports with commercial airline service, probably the former. And no, it's not going to grow to 20K items; only a small subset of airports have airline service. --MCB 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keeps above seem to have the rationale that it will aid standardisation/creation of other wikipedia articles. In that case would it perhaps be better moved out of article namespace? Dave 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but split the page up. It's too large and it will only grow over time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to splitting. I would like to wait a while longer to make sure that we have all of the countries in the correct place. This is easier to see and discuss if everything is in one place. I suppose my concern could be addressed with a nav template that lists countries by continent. Maybe that would be the way to go. Vegaswikian 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep My only concern with this article is the constant changing of services in the airline industry and that this page would have to be rigorously updated or it would risk inaccuracy. --Marriedtofilm 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Once it's complete, it will need little updating. It's not like new airports are being built all the time, or that lots of airports without commercial service are constantly gaining it. From time to time it will need changes, but upkeep should be easy. Furthermore, it serves as a standard for other destination lists (most airline articles have destination lists now, but many do not follow a standard format). I would support moving it to project space, however. DB (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've found this list useful, in part because many of these countries do not yet have their own list of airports and the existing country lists don't always indicate which airports have scheduled commercial airline service. We already have airport lists by country, by IATA code and by ICAO code, so why not this one too? Since it is getting rather large (192 kb), splitting it up would be a good idea - perhaps one list for each continent. - Zyxw 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the only advantage the article could provide over the categories – that of including unintended destinations like Mount Erebus (see Air New Zealand Flight 901) and the Atlantic Ocean (see Air India Flight 182) etc. – is not being used. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding your argument to delete. I don't think "unintended destinations" were ever to be listed in this article. Those examples are tragic catastrophies in which hundreds of people died and have nothing to do with this article. --Marriedtofilm 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to be funny with the "unintended destinations" comment, you failed miserably. That's really sick. DB (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, list is rather long, but well lists are not categories. List is useful with some information other articles do not have. I do support a split as the article is way too long, such as for every continent. But still, this list should no go, and if it stays, it will be good for the encyclopedia. Article always can be clean up some how, still needs some fixing though. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:40, 27 October 2006 (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.