Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of airports

• delete: List of Airports duplicates the coverage of Category:Airports, which is much more complete (and automatically updated) -- there are tens of thousands of airports in the world, and it is impractical to try to list them all by hand. Also, the distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial" airports is confused, since nearly all public airports are commercial (even a crop duster flying off a grass strip is a commercial operation). Note also that nearly all links to the page are due to an old version of the air infobox. David 18:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • Keep: discussion on the vfd for List of Airports in Canada clearly shows that people want to maintain the lists manually, and it doesn't make sense to have national lists without an international list, so I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I would like to include a pointer to Category:Airports at the top of the page (i.e. not as a see-also at the bottom). David 16:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. Though I initially wanted to keep the page at first glance, I do have to admit the Category does a better job of handling things. While I also understand that "commercial airport" is a euphemism for "industrial and/or commercial use (only) airport", I do agree with David that the term is misleading. Don't know about the infobox, but admittedly, this page has served its purpose and is ready for retirement.--Mitsukai 14:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: normally, in a situation like this we'd want to redirect rather than delete; unfortunately, redirecting from a regular page to a category does not seem to work properly. Another solution might be to blank the page and then include some text pointing the user to the category. David 13:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • There are very few "commercial use only" airports. Even the busiest airports usually allow general aviation operations (although often requiring heavy fees). Indeed the only airports that usually don't allow G.A. operations are, AFAIK, military fields. The commercial/noncommercial distinction is definitely flawed and should be removed even if this page stays. The closest you could get is "airports with air carrier operations" vs. not, but even that can be a gray area, and besides, it changes all the time. Danorris 30 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)
• Keep, if only because it provides a list by IATA codes. This is someting I have never found elswhere on the internet (thoguh there are searchable databases), and as such is extremely useful. Tompw 22:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What about [[1]]? It's alphabetical by city name instead of by code letters, but... Danorris 30 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
    • Exactly - that site is by city name, not IATA code. Tompw 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just because I believe "List of Airports" does better job than the Categories. Categories normally provides references for various things related to a certain thing, however in this case airports in the world are all airports; theoretically "Lists" should exist rather than "Categories" handling this type of the lists. --Buckstars 07:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree as far as short, thematic lists go, but in this case we're talking about creating manual lists containing tens or hundreds of thousands of entries, and then trying to keep them current. David 16:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the part about "trying to keep them current". Once an airport is on the list with its IATA code, then nothing more ever needs to be done to the list as far as that airport is concerned. You add an aiport, and that's it. It's not like it includes any information on an airport which could change. Tompw 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems very useful and has its advantages over categories. --Allstar86 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was creating an article for the Zhob airport in Pakistan, and this is the first place I went looking for the IATA and ICAO codes. This article only needs expanding. --Unfocused 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with Unfocused's comment, except the airport I was looking for is King Khalid in Riyadh. -- Eagle^amn 18:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strongly keep. Airports are a sometimes unseen but VERY VITAL part in each country or cities' economical survival. Whoever put this on delete must also think banks and hospitals are not important either! Antonio Dont Worry, Ill explain my personality later Martin 20:00 Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dudtz-Keep

• Delete Actually, no, let's merge it into list of places because what Wikipedia needs is more giantly bloated masses of information, can't be written about in any meaningful way. We're writing an encyclopedia, not The Infinite Rehashing Of Trivial Representations Of Information Better Kept In Other Forms. The Literate Engineer 06:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We're writing a great reference guide to the world. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the value of that.
• Keep. --*drew 10:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Categories do not replace lists. CalJW 13:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes - categories do not replace lists -- they only show completed articles, not potential redlinks. --mervyn 16:14, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.