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. Sr13 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of airport circulators[edit]

List of airport circulators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is very unorganized should be replaced by a category list. Each "airport circulator" system has its own article already, therefore the tables and details on this page are unnecessary. –Dream out loud 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Actually I think a list is more useful than a category here, if only as a repository of info and redlinks for the circulators that do not already have their own articles (and maybe don't deserve them). Without the list, those not notable enough for their own articles vanish. Ford MF 04:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (categorize) No need to have a list when each individual circulator has an article. Categorize. /Blaxthos 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think you need to look more closely at the article. Each airport has its own article, but that's not what's being listed. It's a list of airport circulators, the transit systems, only about half of which have their own articles. Ford MF 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since not every circulator has an article. --NE2 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What's up with all the list-haters? --Nricardo 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while there are still red links then convert to category. However, one might question whether the "airport circulators are indeed notable, as distinct from the airports they serve; if they are not, then the redlinks can be converted to links back to the parent airport and the article deleted. On the other hand, even airport circulator is a red link. Perhaps this article should be moved to become that (missing) article. Peterkingiron 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename as airport circulator and tranform into a proper article.
  • This article does not explain what an airport circulator is. Until that is first done, the list is meaningless. Are a Moving walkway, Escalator, lift or the bus that takes you to the plane airport circulators? TiffaF 06:27, 7 June 2007 (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.