Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

World's busiest airports by international passenger traffic
I'm not sure what the reason for this page is, but that's not a reason for deletion I know. It's apparently sourced from a single place, it's a list that was inexplicably moved away from having the title "list of..." There also exists World's busiest airports by cargo traffic, World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, and World's busiest airports by traffic movements but I'm explicitly not nominating these all together. These is an indiscriminate grab-bag of information that has problems with sourcing. brenneman 07:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some difficulty trying to understand the rationale of your nomination. Is it an issue with the article bering derived from one source, that its title dosent feature the words "List of", or what?--Huaiwei 07:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions.   -- Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 07:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Huaiwei, I didn't make a very good nomination there. This nomination is based upon What Wikipedia is not, and thus is bound to be hazy.  This article looks to me like something spawned from a possibly worthy article gone too far: When something has only one source, we should think again about it's inclusion.  For example, what is gained by having the list duplicated here, as opposed to the place it came from where it will at least be kept up to date? -  brenneman  07:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information like this is a good supplement to the articles we have on airports, and information on which airports are the world's largest is valid and encyclopedic. Regarding the "single source" concern, I would like to point out that the World Almanac has two tables over large airports (one for US, one for rest of the world) in each annual issue, so there is at least one more. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Sjakkalle. This is useful information.--Wehwalt 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, such information on airports and is encyclopedic information.As long as the list is verifiable and sources are cited, its fine, though I would like more sources for different websites of the same type of list as some can be different. No reason for it to be deleted when such valid information is encyclopedic. Terence Ong 13:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cross reference to airports, the list should be maintained to reflect only the most recent years (maybe 3 or 4) or it will get out of hand Alf photoman 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe the last three or four and then say, every ten years previously, to show historical trends. Say, 2003-06 each year,then 2000, 1990, 1980, etc.--Wehwalt 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, articles like this can be improved by including text about changes in total amount of traffic and changes in which airports have become more or less used in a certain period of time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 16 January 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.