Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Asia


 * 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. WjBscribe 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of largest airlines in Asia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. An example showing that this is the case is that Air Astana is missing (an airline which carried 1.4 mill pax in 2006). Or that Air Asia is listed twice, as a group and as an airline. Totally WP:OR. Russavia 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please see relevant comments in Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania, to which this nomination is related to. A list of statistics, each entry of which is sourced, is not WP:V nor WP:OR. I would have expected Russavia to cite WP:SYN as a better reasoning to assert WP:OR, but even if he does, there is far less grounds for claims of WP:SYN when it comes to relatively undisputable statistical tables. When source A says Airline A flew 1000 passengers in 12 months, and source B says Airline B flew 1500 passengers in the same period, is it original research to say Airline B flew more passengers than Airline A? If an entry is missing, it is up to any user to add and correct the list. List of airlines and List of airports may not be fully complete. Shall we delete them? Finally, can Russavia explain in detail why the AirAsia entry should render the entire article worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your point that if an entry is missing--add it, is evidence enough that these lists are original research. --Russavia 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These series of articles lists the largest airlines based on existing verifiable information. The exclusion of non-verifiable information is not to be penalised. Also, the exclusion of any entry simply enforces the fact that this is a work-in-progress article. It dosent turn into Orgainal Research just for being "uniquely incomplete".--Huaiwei 03:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All the individual entries are sourced, and it isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank them.  Also from WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."  I don't see how ranking airlines in size violates the spirit of WP:OR which is essentially an extension of WP:NPOV. --Phirazo 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment They are sourced mainly to primary sources. Additionally, it is WP:SYN in some respects, as at No. 13 you have Air Asia Group (made up of AirAsia, Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia), at No. 20 you have AirAsia, at 31 you have Thai AirAsia and 33 you have Indonesia AirAsia. This is clearly Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position --Russavia 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And just what position do those figures advance?--Huaiwei 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep For all the reasons listed above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - because the World's largest airlines article needs (or needed) to be split. This is just the end result. SchmuckyTheCat


 * 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.