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 redirect to Montenegro Airlines. The list is not so long that it would need a separate article. Tone 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory but this is article is nothing but a directory - of destinations served by a particular airline. Created to "move from main article", but it's such a short list that seems unneccessary. Also has no context or content other than links so speedy deletable on two counts, but I'm assuming context will follow. I42 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As already explained, all airlines that fly to more than 10 destinations have dedicated destinations articles; this one is no exception. Please refer to the project guidelines at WP:Airlines before nominating this for deletion for a third time. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jasepl. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into Montenegro Airlines. The main article and this destinations article are not so long that they need to be separate. Contrary to Jasepl, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content says, "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article." (Emphasis added.) "Could", not "must". Anyway, even if it did say "must", that would not be binding on the community at AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the guidelines say "could". However, refer here and you will find a large number of articles that will meet the delete-and-merge-back criteria that you explained above. And it would be perfectly fine to merge the Montenegro Airlines destinations article back into the main article, if the same thing were done for all of the other similar articles. Why selectively treat one article differently than another? Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I have no idea what Jasepl means by "nominating this for deletion for a third time". Montenegro Airlines destinations has not existed long enough to have been nominated for deletion before this first time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I42 attempted a speedy delete before listing it here. Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be pedantic, it was a PROD nomination. I42 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Just because other articles exist, for airline destinations, does not mean that it has to be done. There is no inherent right of existence for any such article. Forseeably, this one can improve, and maybe it was nominated too quickly. However, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of airports, and its only source is a broken link, so I have no way to verify it. The content can be summarized in a single paragraph-- "Montenegro Airlines has service to airports in Austria (Vienna), Croatia (Zagreb), Denmark (Copenhagen), France (Paris), Germany (Dusseldorf and Frankfurt), Italy (Milan and Rome), Macedonia (Skopje), Montenegro (Podgorica and Tivat), Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg), Serbia (Belgrade, Nis, and Pristina), Slovenia (Ljubljana), Switzerland (Zurich), and the United Kingdom (London Gatwick Airport)." Throw in a link for people who want to know such things as flight times and numbers, and one will have improved the article about the airline. This article is essentially uninformative and tells us zero about Montenegro Airlines itself. The only arguments for keep appear to be that it's an honor of some sort if an airline has its own Wikipedia article about its destinations. Believe me, it isn't. Mandsford (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, consensus has been reached at WP:Airlines that a suitable length for a destination list article is at least ten destinations, particularly if these are in multiple countries. I counted nineteen in a dozen countries, so this article should be well over the limit. See for instance Braathens destinations for how such an article would look when it is near the quality of a featured list nomination. As with all lists, the bare structure often looks minimal, but when a relevant framework and formatting is established, it is suitable as a stand-alone article. But just like stubs, we dont' delete them just because they currently are not full length. The information can easily be confirmed at the company's web site, so the issue of non-references not important, although it would be much preferred if references were added. If there is disagreement about the consensus at the wikiproject, it would probably be better to discuss there to see if the community consensus for such an article has changed. This was established a number of years ago after a community-wide discussion of the nature and need for destination lists (that in participation went far beyond active members of WP:Airlines). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an Elvis Presley project decided to create an article on every Elvis tribute act, that would not supercede the requirement that each separate article met WP:N and WP:MUSIC - no project can override the wider Wikipedia consensus. So I think for the purpose of this AfD we must ignore the Airlines project and consider whether the article meets general Wikipedia policy alone. If the conclusion is that it does not then the Airlines project needs to re-examine its objectives because, as is noted above, the are many articles very much like this one which have been created because of it. I42 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We have lists of destinations for lots of airlines, and this airline's list of destinations is long enough. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Montenegro Airlines with a redirect. By the WP:SIZE guideline, this list can be put back into the article about the airline without causing readability issues. When the main article gets long enough to warrant a split, then this list should have its own article. There is enough clean up needed for this airline that the WikiProject should consider keeping it as a single article. (For instance, the article map shows flights to South America even though the official website and the list article do not show flights there.) Concentrating on one article (until size warrants a split) will make it easier to keep the information up to date. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.