Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airlines of Pakistan


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Airlines of Pakistan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This 'list' is more than covered by categories, such as Category:Airlines of Pakistan, Category:Aviation in Pakistan, etc Russavia 08:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists and categories have different purposes and the existence of one is never a good argument for deleting the other (see also Categories, lists, and series boxes). For example, the way of organizing this list (current airlines, defunct airlines etc) is impossible to do in a clear way with categories (yes subcategories can be used, but that does not visualize the articles as clearly as this list). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, we have Category:Airlines of Pakistan, Category:Defunct airlines of Pakistan, Category:Planned airlines of Pakistan. Additionally, we also have Category:Cargo airlines, and will be adding Category:Charter airlines. Not to mention, these also already exist, Category:Aircraft_manufacturers_of_the_Pakistan, Category:Aviation in Pakistan, Category:Airports in Pakistan, Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan, and Category:Pakistani aviators. Categories are more than doing their job. --Russavia 11:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is beside the point. I am not saying that categories cannot do their job properly. I am saying that maintaning lists as well can be of additional benefit for navigating articles. Again, please see Categories, lists, and series boxes for more information. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). This doesn't necessarily have to be just a list but an article on the airline industry of Pakistan. Indeed the information in the lead cannot be obtained from a category. The article is certainly in need of expansion but is encyclopaedic. → AA (talk) — 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You could almost substitute any country for Pakistan in the lead paragraph and it would hold true for most countries. There really is nothing in the list that can't be covered quite succinctly by the use of categories. --Russavia 11:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed - you can substitute any country and I would argue they would be encyclopaedic articles. Maybe the title needs changing to something like History of airlines in Pakistan or subsumed into History of aviation in Pakistan (see History of aviation in Bangladesh). → AA (talk) — 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk) — 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I would like to see this move in the direction of it becoming an article and not a list.  For now keeping this does not cause any harm.  However if a year goes by and there is no expansion, then the listish nature of the article would only duplicate information in other lists and it should be considered at that time for deletion. Vegaswikian 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I dont think this list has a "loose" inclusion criteria unlike many others. Corpx 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This structured list is superior to the category. Golfcam 23:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I'll try and expand on the article. Still don't see how this article can be deleted I've seen way more ridiuclous articles on wiki compared to this. BK2006 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep categories do not cover redlinks. Dhaluza 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.