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.

I am closing this article for deletion page as a keep. Due to the larger consensus for keep and the undefined, short delete !votes which most probably came from voters who had not seeked the proper information before voting, due to the swiftness of their edits since the previous. Rudget _ 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note - per this drv, this close have been overturned and the article has been sent back to AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1[edit]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason to move it to a sub-article which is given on the Manchester Airport talk page, there is no Wikipedia policy which states that long lists of irrelivant information related to airports must be on the articles pages, it seems to be the opinion of one project yet this article stretches over two projects. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are display or format issues, then that should be discussed and resolved before making significant changes which may be opposed. Vegaswikian 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete needless trivia.Balloonman 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in the past, these types of pages have been routinely deleted. Making a change for peer review does not mean it is the correct one. Also don't forget that another project is working on a better solution then this. Your logic here seems to be based on a peer reviewer likes it justification. This issue should have been raised in the correct working projects before taking this action to make a point. Instead the decision was to ignore the existence of other projects. Vegaswikian 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with above. Merging all the destinations into one page would be better. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As the creator of the article I also agree that this can be merged into one article, even though the Airports WikiProject have given some good ideas of using expandable tables, I do not feel it would work with the large airport such as Manchester's. Vegaswikian's point that someone wants it kept because WP:ILIKEIT is contrary to the fact that they want it deleted because they do not like it. The list of destinations is notable but not notable enough to be included on the Manchester Airport article and it dominated the article with information not directly relevant to the article. The editors of the Airports Project have not given a rationale why the destinations must be included on the article other that 'just because it does'. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge as the creator I think the articles for each terminal should probably be included in one list. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are comfortable with the creation of thousands of tiny new articles based on this precedent and you are totally opposed to the alternative of converting the list to a collapsed table which is likely to be the direction for all other similar articles. Vegaswikian 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this as any sort of new precedent. There are many lists of a similar nature already. I do oppose attaching large lists directly to articles no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are prose.--BirgitteSB 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a precedent for the airport articles which all contain these lists and do not have them as separate article. And I'll ask again. So you are also opposed to a collapsed table in the article. The effect of that is basically the same look as the main article pointer with the difference that we don't create thousands of extra articles. This is important given that the table allows one common format for all airport articles. The proposal you are pushing says that some articles should have information broken out into another article while the remainder should retain the information in line. And the break out point is based on a very subjective definition of large. Vegaswikian 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how to express my opinion any more clearly: I oppose attaching large lists directly to articles of any sort, no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are written in prose not tabular form.--BirgitteSB 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So lists and tables should not be included in articles? If they can be included what determines large in the context of any article. You are saying keep because you don't like the article with this infomation included. I do hope that the closing admin considers that the keep votes here are really WP:ILIKEIT ones. Vegaswikian 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. Rather it is your nomination that is "don't like it". My "Keep" opinion is based on this list being well-defined and finite; acceptable by policy and in line with the current practice of splitting off large detailed bits from articles. While I do not like the particular suggestion you asked me about afterwards, it has nothing to do my initial “Keep” opinion. I could just have easily disliked your suggestion and said “Delete” the material entirely from Wikipedia as others have said.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 8 November 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.