Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amsterdam Airport Schiphol airlines and 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 redirect to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. I think indeed that wider discussion should have taken place before this AfD--I don't want to call this a disruptive nomination, but it's...well, not very collegial. I'm going to redirect, awaiting wider discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol airlines and destinations[edit]

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

This information is already contained in the main body of the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol article, a separate page is not necessary. SempreVolando (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not any more. I have reverted the revert of the sockpuppet. To my opinion the list is taking up to much space in the article about Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Beside that, the destination are not really relevant for the article as they are not "connected" to the airport (not the airport flies there but an airline). The Banner talk 22:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information regarding airlines and destinations are included in airport articles. If they belong in a separate article, a discussion should be started prior to the splitting. For the record, Schiphol is not the largest airport in terms of number of destinations, others exist with a large number of them and they should also have their lists split. I strongly suggest a discussion at WT:AIRPORT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I see the non-existing wide discussion at WT:AIRPORT (just the two of us), it looks like nobody is bothered by the split off. Nobody has voiced any opposition their (no support too). The Banner talk 09:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SIZE and WP:NOTPAPER would suggest it's OK, but I recommend it's withdrawn (and redirected, for now), with a full RfC being raised. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If the two guidelines above apply we should consider the split of a number of airport articles. Still insist with a thorough discussion.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly per Jetstreamer. The page's information is already included in another article, where it better fits versus this separate page. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary content fork Kraxler (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2015 (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.