Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porter Airlines destinations


 * 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   delete. Guidelines are just that and local wikiprojects do not get to overrule project consensus. Destinations pages are for convienience when the main article is getting too big but the consensus here is that this hasnt reached thzt point yet. No convincing case for keeping this as a standalone has been made that overpowers arguments based on gng and WP:NOT. Therefore this falls for deletion as there is no need to mege material back. Note that recreation is specifically permitted when the main article expands beyond acdetpable length (we have a MOS on that) or where the number of destinations expands to the point that they overpower the article Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Porter Airlines destinations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page is a simple content fork of Porter Airlines. I propose merging the content back into the Porter Airlines article. This was the case before and it was done because a complete duplication of the information of the destinations of this airline was in both articles. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This information is now a section at the Porter Airlines article (thanks to whoever created it), so a separate page is no longer necessary. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - A simple solution is to simply cut the list from the main article and paste it into the destinations article. Duplication problem solved and consistency with other airline articles maintained. All in two easy steps. Jasepl (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A suggestion on WP:AIRLINES states that if there are 10+ destinations there isn't any reason not to have a seperate article. As with many other airline destination pages, Porter is the same, why should they not have the same article type for their destinations? Zaps93 (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That seems a weak reasoning. Why make people go to two pages? &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:Airlines suggests that greater than 10 destinations be moved to a separate article. And Porter is a fast growing airline adding destinations on a regular basis now as they increase the size of their operations. A separate article for these destinations keeps from cluttering the main article. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The table is collapsible. I made it into a redirect because duplicate info was on both pages. So, if we dont have duplication, then there will be no destination information on the Porter page. That seems a bit 'wacked.' &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - but no different to other sizable airlines. Canterbury Tail   talk  17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - no other article than the Porter article links to Porter Airlines destinations. This really is a simple content fork. It properly should just be a list at the end of the article, after the prose section. The Wikipedia MOS should take precedence. After all the airlines project is merely a suggestion. Besides, Porter only list another five or so destinations. They will run out of fleet. I would rather revisit having a second article list article a year or so in the future. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with retaining the separate destinations article, as is consistent with most other airlines that have > 10 destinations. Though a separate article is not required per project guidelines (it's not even required of an airline like Air France, with hundreds of destinations) it is the practice almost across the board. The destinations list in the main article can simply be removed, with a link to the dedicated article. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - What also is a weak reasoning is "They will run out of fleet". That's placing too much importance on conjecture and PoV - totally against the basic principles applied here. Jasepl (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - No conjecture, just very obvious. They have two planes to arrive, so how many destinations can they add in the short-term with two planes? It's not a big airline, people. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the more than ten destination guideline, link only required in related article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The WP:AIRLINES advice that greater than 10 destinations be moved to a separate article is a guideline and cannot trump the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, and this article is nothing more than a directory entry. (This same argument was recently had at Articles for deletion/Montenegro Airlines destinations which closed in favour of merging the destination list back into the parent article, but this was swiftly undone regardless.) I42 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - So you're for deleting this. Are you also for or against the original proposal of merging the information back into the main article? Canterbury Tail   talk  13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is for deletion of this article as it is simply a directory. Inclusion of the destinations covered may be possible in an encyclopedic manner (see my comments below) but let's focus on this article for now. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Being pedantic, but there were four "Keep" and three "Delete" for the Montenegro deletion nomination. Hardly conclusive in either direction. Jasepl (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not (or should not be) a mere count of votes. My assertion is that keep rationales based purely on WP:AIRLINES should be discounted because that policy cannot trump WP:NOTADIRECTORY. The AfD was closed as merge, so this was presumably the closing admin's view too. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not a directory in any sense, it's just like any other airline destinations! Zaps93 (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a directory. It's a listing of places I may go to with that airline. And it doubly fails inclusion criteria as a travel guide. This is an encyclopedia: information about an airline's history and importance is encyclopedic; notable events leading to a route being included is encyclopdic; a mere directory of served destinations is not. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While that may be a valid point, it is a much larger discussion. I don't think the AfD of a fledgling, insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) little airline is the place to be discussing this. Jasepl (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the WP:AIRLINES guideline should be discussed - see eg Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airlines) for a start - but here we are talking specifically of this article. You now appear to accept that it is an unencyclopedic directory entry, and are further suggesting that the airline is non-notable. Does your Keep recommendation stand? I42 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems pretty clear that there is not going to be consensus this time to delete, either. Maybe I should ask the question why people -want- to put the destinations in another article. And just because a WP:Airlines guideline says "could" is not applicable. I'm looking for common sense here, people. &#x0298; alaney2k  •   talk &#x0298; 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its there already (in a separate article). Its doing no harm. It is actual, useful information... Jasepl (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOHARM and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I42 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you! Ever so much. However, the content is not disputed here; no one's questioning its validity or accuracy. Jasepl (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Porter unlikely to get much beyond 10 destinations. For article continuity I think that keeping the destinations in the main Porter article suits this situation best. Atrian (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see why this airline's destinations article is singled out for deletion from others. The standard is established at WP:AIRLINES and this fits within that standard.--Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This, like all the keep rationales, is based entirely on the WP:AIRLINES guideline. But that is only a guideline, not a policy - and WP:NOTADIRECTORY (which is policy) must take precedence. Other articles have no bearing on this discussion. I42 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only occasionally seen the WP:ONLYGUIDELINE argument used to delete articles. Wikipedia is also not a system of laws (which by the way is a policy). Guidelines are established by WP:CONSENSUS (another policy) and heavy community input as to how to treat certain subjects and situations.  I'd prefer to avoid Wikilawyering, having meta discussions on guidelines-vs-policies and not have to conjure up contradicting policies and guidelines in an AfD debate.--Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. This AfD is indeed helping form consensus. Depending on the outcome I think we should review either WP:AIRLINES or WP:NOTADIRECTORY to fit. I42 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a 13-row table in an article is fully acceptable. The WP:Airlines standard is just a minimum, and an AfD is in full power to overrule if people feel the list is too short. The project should probably reconsider its guidelines, but this list is still too short to stand on its own. If Porter hit 30 or so destinations in the future, then I would be willing to reconsider the list. Arsenikk (talk)  08:49, 10 February 2010 (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.