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 both. Sr 13 03:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines in Ukraine[edit]

As per this Afd these lists are more than covered by categories, and lists are at List of airlines and List of defunct airlines. Russavia 11:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it too is covered by categories as per above:

Delete Both, list categories that would be better served as categories. Lankiveil 12:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't seen any compelling reasons for deleting both. The proposed article presents information in a far better way and supplies way more information than categories would. --Hillock65 12:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to split List of airlines into List of airlines in <Country> to ensure List of airlines does not grow beyond a managable size and transclude each country specific list into List of airlines? → AA ^(talk) — 12:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the information can be found elsewhere. Can it not be transferred to a category, with each airline having its own article? If we look at ((Europe in topic|List of airlines in)), all but one of the links is redundant. That link that isn't is this AfD, so those are my suggestions. Lra drama 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I don't want to bother logging in, I'd like to say that all of that information was hard to find and make a list out of. Having lists doesn't hurt Wikipedia, especially if the information is hard to find. --193.178.229.130 15:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is able to be found at [1] and also in a document produced by the "State Air Traffic Management Corporation" which lists all of this information, and then some. But the fact that some of the companies on this Ukraine list are not even airlines (in some cases they are ticketing agents and brokers), surely brings into question the accuracy of any list - ICAO codes being listed aside. --Russavia 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dont see categories showing information like hub airports. And I also agree that List of airlines may be better off split off into smaller, more easily managed articles which can also provide a little more information, which in turn helps add value to lists.--Huaiwei 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list includes minor airlines, which do not need articles written about them. Yet, the existence of such airlines worth mentioning, and the list serves this purpose. --Korpus6i67 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why we have to have only the category system for navigation and for referencing. Mulitple information paths are only a benefit to our readers, and having this list does nothing to harm the project. Categories have a number of limitations, and there's information in this list that would simply disappear if we only relied on the category system. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Huaiwei and others.--Riurik^(discuss) 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Other then the hubs, we already have this information in a list, Airline codes. As pointed out above this is a large amount of data. It takes most browsers a while to render the entire list. However that list was the combination of 3 other lists with the same data organized in different ways and in conflict with each other. With one list, changes mean updating one file rather then three. Usually only one list was updated in the past since editors were not aware of the others or did not care to do multiple updates. Now we have another set of lists again with the same data and adding hubs. Having the data in multiple places in in the past just resulted in out of date data in several places. By deleting these articles, we will have one place to update the information which should mean more accurate data on a timely basis. Leaving List of airlines is OK since that is a simple list by country without the other repeated data in that the other lists contain. Vegaswikian 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only way to have list which can sort information by country from Airline codes is to list all entries and then click the sort button. I just tried doing that, and I never completed the task, for it managed to crash my web browser. Its merely empirical, yes, but I am sure I will not be alone in experiencing such difficulties. Further, I doubt there will be many users seeking to look for quick information on airports in a country to actually check up Airline codes instead.--Huaiwei 00:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list having a lot of red links. Thus, everybody interested in Ukrainian aviation can see the airlibes missing and fill the void. Also the hub information is useful to Alex Bakharev 23:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This structured list is superior to the category. Golfcam 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Structured list, meets WP:LIST providing more information than category can provide. Davewild 08:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful encyclopedic list.--Oakshade 06:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories do not cover redlinks.Dhaluza 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhaluza. Avala 20:35, 31 July 2007 (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.