Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Guam

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, without prejudice of later merging. Cool Hand Luke 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Guam

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

There is only two companies here so this page is not worth it as it has very little info displayed Wilbysuffolk talk 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of the complete List of airlines, deletion damages the encyclopedic coverage of the subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists with two items on the list that have a reason are ok. No purpose to disorganizing the encyclopedia to save a page of paper that doesn't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the lists of airlines by country that have only one or a handful of airlines into a single list. These lists have navigational value but this value is diluted by having the content strewn over multiple pages, and a list with only a few items isn't much of a list. Reyk _YO! 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reyk. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related comments exist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland. We are here to discuss deletion, the offers to redesign this useful structure in another way that is more complicated but still equally useful are not reasons to delete, but reasons to keep to allow the work to go forward. This is a paperless encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (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.