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


 * 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 19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of largest airlines in Europe

 * – (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 S7 Airlines is missing, an airilne which [carried 4.9 million pax in 2006]. Totally WP:OR. Rankings need to be attributed to WP:V sources, not as a result of WP:OR. Russavia 02:38, 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?--Huaiwei 02:41, 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 02:52, 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 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment You could almost add WP:SYN to this. According to this list, the 23rd largest airlines in Europe is Meridiana. But if we were to only use the example above (S7 Airlines), the original research used to create and source the article has resulted in a breach of WP:SYN. Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, does it not have to be demonstrated that this article is no WP:OR? --Russavia 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am surprised you do not know WP:SYN before launching into this nomination exercise, but at least I have pre-empted it. There is a reason why I chose to exclude numbered lists in List of largest airlines in Asia, for example, only adding in the numbers just three days ago on an experimental basis. Would you object to removing those numbers?--Huaiwei 03:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Huaiwei. --Emesee 03:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A few of the individual entries are not sourced, but this is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. It isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank airlines.  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 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is the danger of using company sources for information, as I have found something which calls into question the reliability of using sources given by Lufthansa (and by default, any company with a PR motive), and which can be used in violation of WP:SYN (without the editor even realising). Refer to this site which is referenced in World's largest airlines, IATA being a reputable source of course. Now look at World%27s_largest_airline, which is sourced to the IATA site. Now look at Lufthansa's site which uses a source for its figures Source: IATA World Air Transport Statistics (i.e. the above linked IATA site). However, there is one big difference. In the IATA version, Lufthansa is at No.6. In the Lufthansa version, Lufthansa is at No. 5 (with Southwest at 96million being omitted). This is not isolated. Look at World%27s_largest_airline which uses the same IATA site as a reference. Now refer to Lufthansa's PR site, which claims to use the same IATA site. BIG difference, Ryanair has been removed completely which conveniently pushes Lufthansa into the No. 1 spot (a point they made no small mention of here), and additionally, Easyjet which is at No. 6 on the IATA list is also conveniently missing. What is needed is a neutral reliable source which can provide the 'largest' list, so that the lists are not in breach of WP:V, WP:OR, and possibly also WP:SYN --Russavia 20:17, 8 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 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no paragraph in World's largest airlines relating to this article, in fact there is an entire single sentence in the entire article (with the exception of an explanation). The only thing which exists is a link to this article and nothing more. If one refers to World%27s_largest_airlines or World%27s_largest_airlines, they are clearly sourced, and there can be no 'dispute' as to any rankings of 'largest'. These articles do not supply an external source for any rankings but rather rely on editors own assumptions. What is needed is industry sources which establish these rankings. --Russavia 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may reiterate, this article, like all other similar articles in this series, were split off from the World's largest airlines article. This was the section in the original article prior to split off: . This is the article as it was split off on 22 June 2007:. Some time later, the table in the original article was removed and reduced to a one-line paragraph to avoid dublication of content, so Hmains is entire right in what he was saying. Kindly check edit histories (and the relevant talkpages) before making assumptions. Thanks!--Huaiwei 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Is one supposed to go back thru the history of edits from 4 months ago to understand an assertion that is made in regards to the article as it stands now? With all due respect, what a silly thing to say?
 * Silliness is subjective, especially when one considers the following: You are able to ascertain the original author of this article, given the insertion of a deletion nomination warning. The natural way of deducing the original author, is to look at the article edit history, and check who made the earliest edit. And the earliest edit summary includes the following text: New page from list of largest airlines. You are now claiming that you could deduce who is the original author, yet misses the edit history clearly stating a fact you claim ignorance of. Silliness? Perhaps, perhaps not. And as a matter-of-fact, it is indeed expected that everyone reads the edit history, and all relevant talkpages, as much as they can master, before they intend to do something drastic, AFDs being one of them. Four months is not a long time, compared to some edit conflicts which drag for four years or more. You want to join in those discussions? You gotta do your own research and check up on past discussions, because if you fail to do so, do not expect others to be too pleased in having to repeat past discussions on the same issues. This is simple ethics and basic courtesy. Now of course most wikipedians are kind enough to refer to old discussions if they have to englighten those who fail to read up properly, but I think you have to realise that no one owes you a favour in having to read four months of edit histories for you and constantly remind you on what has transpired in the past in a situation like this.--Huaiwei 10:45, 9 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 - Per all above. Any inaccuracies is a matter of editing/correcting, not deleting. --Oakshade 00:09, 9 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.