Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3


 * 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. See also Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and the other AFD which were closed as keeps. W.marsh 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Merge into Manchester Airport. Vegaswikian 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even merge it. It isn't encyclopedic. But whetever. Just delete it. i (talk)  23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In every commercial airport article, and I do mean every, there's a list of airlines serving that airport and their destinations. Since when is that un-encyclopedic?  Do you know something every editor of the thousands of commercial airport articles don't?  --Oakshade 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be there either... DeleteBalloonman 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. as above said, not encyclopedic. Merging is fine, however having separate articles is just useless.  Heights (Want to talk?) 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - merge back in to main Manchester Airport article only that information is essential. As an aside, I can't see any such reference in the (very brief) peer review. - fchd 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Peer review is not authoritative. Their suggesstions do not contravene valid AfD noms. &mdash; Soleil (formerly I )  23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case the AfD has contravened the peer review. Bureaucracy at its Wiki finest. --Oakshade 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This cannot contravene the peer review, as the peer review does not have any authority. It is a bunch of editors who feel like making suggestions. &mdash; Soleil (formerly I ) 
 * And here? Rudget Contributions 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, there is authority in the result and advice. Peer review does not. I (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Learned editors from a peer review', that just leaves me speechless! Throw out AGF, throw out style guidelines, throw out all wikiprojects!  I'm glad that we have found where all of the learned editors exist and they are the sole authorities on wikipedia style and don't need to consult with anyone.  Talk about I like it pushed to the extreme. Vegaswikian 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "learned editors" are actually from WikiProject Aviation and based their recommendations on style guidelines. You're emotionsl rant (time for a Wikibreak?) appears as I don't like it.--Oakshade 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.-- Birgitte  SB  20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - and getting rid of it altogether may be an even better idea. - fchd 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Are you suggesting merging the content back to the Manchester Airport article, exactly opposite of what the peer review suggested? Or do you mean delete the content? --Oakshade 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - The other 2 terminal articles that were up for AfD, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2, have both been Kept.   I suggest a closure of this AfD. --Oakshade 23:35, 9 November 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.