Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former airline hubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former airline hubs

Former airline hubs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I believe this violates WP:NOT#INFO, almost any airline which is no longer flying could also be placed on this list, making it totally indiscriminate. Russavia 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It would be indiscriminate only if it was simply a list of airports, but in this case, the information provided is which airlines used which airports for hubs. Arguably, becoming the hub of a particular airline is the most significant accomplishment for an airport and the surrounding community, and losing the airline's presence is equally devestating. Mandsford 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge per Elkman below. If the article gets too wieldy, it can be split again. There are a lot of current Airlines (Continental, American) that consolidated operations (either through contraction or shutdown of companies taken over) that have dehubbed cities. Even as a deletionist, I think this is worthy of an article. This + what Mandsford said shows the importance of it. Spryde 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per others. Useful also in its own right (not just as archive of dead stuff) for looking at the changing patterns of hubbing vs point-to-point routing. DMacks 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Could also go with merge per Elkman below. DMacks 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep To topic is too specific to be an indiscriminate list and the topic is encyclpedic. --Oakshade 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Airline hub. The rationale of showing the importance of a hub and the changing patterns of hub cities is an encyclopedic topic, but it might be better served within one article rather than two. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keeep because it distinguishes between current and defunct airlines. Encyclopaedic because it shows effects of mergers and being made redundant.--Inetpup 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Airline hub. Having more places with basically the same data is a maintenance nightmare. --Matt 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Much easier to maintain by moving within the same page as hubs come and go. Vegaswikian 18:20, 24 September 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.