Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartLynx 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SmartLynx Airlines destinations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod. There is no reason for this article, which looks to be promotional in intent. It should be deleted and the content merged into SmartLynx Airlines Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - I contested the PROD. I understand Jezhotwells' concerns however many airline articles are supplemented by a seperate destination list particularly when the list is long and would seriously effect the length of the article (e.g BMI (airline) which is supplemented by BMI destinations). In addition, the WikiProject Aviation/Style guide advises that "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article" - the SmartLynx destination list meets this criteria with more than fifteen destinations. AreaControl (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no remotely plausible argument that this list would over-extend the length of the source article. In fact, the source article should be relabeled as a stub. Shadowjams (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep meets sub-article definition at WikiProject Airlines/page content. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The list is barely long enough to warrant moving it out of SmartLynx Airlines. &mdash; QuantumEleven 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Why can't this be integrated into the original article? An airline's notability doesn't justify the spin off notability of a dozen of articles... for instance, destinations, arrivals, connections, etc. Unless there're articles talking about these destinations/arrivals and why they're relevant, there's absolutely no reason for this kind of fork. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a reason for it, it shortens the main airline article. Policies and guidelines provided by the relevant Wikiprojects mandate that airlines with more than ten destinations could have seperate lists, if this practise did not happen we would have incredibly long airline articles for no reason. This is a long established practise on Wikipedia for airlines AreaControl (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2009 (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.


 * Strong Keep - As already said, the page was made as there were over 10 destinations, therefor it fits into the criteria. Zaps93 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)