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 Merge to A380. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary article. Doesn't even deal with the topic it is named for. We don't have articles on airports that serve the 747 or other aircraft. Just because the A380 is a large aircraft doesn't mean it needs that special attention, just a runway long enough. Ben W Bell talk 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for not doing what it says and being more speculative than anything much else. Potentially an encyclopedic topic if/when airports start making wholesale changes to allow for the new aircraft, since it is a pretty massive vehicle. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original research and crystal ball gazing. Yomangani^talk 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator may not have understood this issue. The A380 also needs an appropriate terminal building to load passengers through two doors. Toronto's Pearson International Airport has constructed a new terminal building, in part to allow it to handle the A380, and the cost of the new building is part of the reason why landing fees at Pearson are so high. So the number of airports which can serve the A380 is limited by runway length, terminal capacity and economics: many airline routes don't consistently generate the number of passengers that an A380 needs to operate cost-effectively. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must say I understand the issue on the A380 just fine. Special buildings are not needed to load and unload the aircraft, only if the airport wishes to use both levels of doors at the same time, otherwise just using the lower doors like on all other aircraft is fine. Airports can be altered to better accomodate the A380 with its facilities, but it's not necessary to do so. Ben W Bell talk 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into A380 article, which already has a section on this, maybe could use a little expansion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; if we want a list of airports capable of handling the A380, then this isn't it; if it's meant to be a discussion of destination of A380 routes, this is crystal-ballism; if it's meant to be a discussion of the problems that TruthbringerToronto mentions, it belongs in the A380 article. Seems most like the latter and not well written either. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The special requirements for the A380 do not merit an article to list the airports that have decided to (add any word you want here) their money to handle this aircraft. Vegaswikian 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article

May i remind all of you that the A380 is a very important and interesting topic for many Wiki viewers! after all i know many pilots and aviators who are very interested in the A380 and also are members or viewers of this site. If you dont like this article then add to it or just dont look at it!

Comment Yes we all know that, however if the article isn't considered encyclopaedic, is unnecessary or doesn't fulfill what it says it is about then it shouldn't be here. Just saying don't look at it isn't good practice, if we judged by that then Wikipedia would fill up with the most useless stuff going. Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 3 October 2006 (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.