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, without prejudice of later merging. Cool Hand Luke 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Greenland[edit]

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

Only has one airline in the table giving very little info. There for it should be deleted Wilbysuffolk talk 02:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of the complete List of airlines, deletion damages the encyclopedic coverage of the subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list with only one entry are not lists. Pointing to Air Greenland is a formatting issue of List of airlines.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does there being a three airlines operating in Greenland change your conclusion? --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists with one item on the list that have a reason are ok. No purpose to disorganizing the encyclopedia to save a page of paper that doesn't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the best thing to do would be to find all the similar pages of countries with only one or a handful of airlines, and merge them. A list with only one entry is not a list. Reyk _YO! 06:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good idea, then each country can have its own section for linking purposes.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a bigger list - I like Ryk's idea of merger. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, the statement that lists with one entry are not lists is an incompetent or POV-pushing statement, lists may also have zero entries–this ref returns 1.3 million gHits for "empty list". Unscintillating (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We're talking about Wikipedia list articles with a single entry, not "list" as in data structures which in computer programming may very well be empty. Your WP:GOOGLEHITS comment is moot. More relevant guidelines can be found at WP:CLN, WP:LIST and for stand-alone lists like this one, WP:SAL. Surprisingly, the issue of empty or single entry list doesn't seem to have been brought up, but given that we don't create disambiguation pages for 2 entries or less, and empty articles can be speedily deleted, single entry list can be considered listcruft and editors should consider other options before creating them, such as merging all those countries with only one or two airlines into a single article that would allow the List of airlines to be complete without making unnecessary separate single entry list articles (which are nothing more than semi-functional redirects).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any strikethrough text on the statement, "list with only one entry are not lists." So the 1.3 million Google hits that say otherwise remain on point that the statement (as a statement) is incompetent. Those are many interesting references you've put there, and my response will not do justice to everything you have said. A couple of the references are off topic. For example no one is talking about empty articles (I've discussed lists with zero elements below, which is quite different) so it is not useful to know that empty articles are subject to speedy deletion. I looked briefly at listcruft, but it is hardly relevant, looks like it was written by POV deletionists who objected to balanced viewpoints and told others to write their own essay (see edit history, Stifle openly identifies as a deletionist). We are here to discuss deletion, the offers to redesign this useful structure in another way that is more complicated but still equally useful are not reasons to delete, but reasons to keep to allow the work to go forward. This is a paperless encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to do all of this redesign, I doubt that anyone will complain after this article is kept. The current design is not broken, but it will be if this article is deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For what it's worth, Greenland Air is not the only airline operating in Greenland, note that Air Iceland (not to be confused with Iceland Air) has Summer service on Greenland. [1], although since then they've expanded to ~~at least include service Reykjavik to Illulissat as well.~~ serve five cities in Greenland according to their own web site. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and SAS has a regular flight Copenhagen to Kangerlussuaq, which is a primary route used to move European tourists onto the Greenlandic coastal cruises. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that the list is intended (in contrast to its current wording) to be airlines based in Greenland, I'd change my vote to a neutral between keep and merge into (pick your place). I don't have a problem with 1-entry lists when they result in a more consistent encyclopedia architecture, but it's also no big deal AFAIC, and reasonable minds vary. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this is a list of airlines of Greenland, not simply in Greenland. You may want to reconsider your vote in light of that fact.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland may or may not always have one airline. The keyword here is "maintainability". If this list gets zapped, then you might even have to get a DRV review just to get the list restored when things change. No one is claiming that the current design is broken, what are we trying to fix? Afraid of feature creep to zero items on the list? What is wrong with going to the list of Greenland airlines and being told that the set is the null set? This is a paperless encyclopedia, if you want to know about the list of Greenland airlines, it may be exactly what you wanted to know to see that the list has a length of zero. Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the article says. The article says "This is a list of airlines currently operating in Greenland." --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and there are now two airlines on the list. Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, apparently SAS stopped doing the Copenhagen<->SFJ route. As to whether there Air Iceland should still be there, that's a matter for "what was the intended inclusion criteria for the article", I went by what the article said. *shrug* --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it weird to include Airlines of other states that have stops somewhere on their respective list? For a similar list for, say, the USA, we wouldn't list British Airways, even though they do stop there. I'm pretty sure the purpose of these lists is to have the native airlines, and this one should probably be changed in line with the rest.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a complete nonsense. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (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.