Talk:Virgin America

DirectAir flights (are they VX routes?)

NcSchu states that the DirectAir flights should not be placed in the body of the article, because they are "not VX routes". I claim that they are. For example, see http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD5814 to show that they use callsign "Redwood" (VRD). In addition, as mentioned, they use VX crew, VX livery, VX inflight branding, etc. The only part that is not VX is the reservation system and the gate agents. You may be able to convince me that it doesn't belong there, but please come up with a better argument. Ron Schnell 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

A wet-lease means that yes, crew, aircraft, interior, callsign, everything is leased over to another organization for temporary usage. Direct Air is a separate organization that doesn't own its own aircraft or doesn't have enough to cope with demand and uses other airline's aircraft, in this case VX, to compensate. Wet-leases are used when the organization also doesn't have enough resources available to 'stock' the aircraft with its own personel and branding. Can you book these Direct Air flights through Virgin America? No, which completely proves my point. The destinations section is for Virgin America destinations only, not Direct Air, that has its own article. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good enough. Ron Schnell 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

LAX Focus City????

Another edit war regarding whether LAX is a focus city or not. Any comments?? Charmedaddict (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's been the change since we last discussed this? A change in status should originate from a change in routes and markets, not a change of "people". HkCaGu (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

VX has never named LAX a focus city so I don't see how you could call it one. Every other airline with focus cities publishes at least one document of their own which lists them and that is not the case here. AA, CO, DL, US, UA, NW, SW, AirTran, JetBlue, Midwest, & Spirit have all done this making their focus cities easily citable when they have them but VX has only done this with their SFO base. If you can find me this missing piece of the puzzle then I'll happily oblige with your prior consensus. 76.22.201.164 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IND,DAY, and Akron-Canton aren't listed as Focus Cities for AirTran even though third party sources have called them that. Same with US Airways and Kansas City even though they had several non-hub US Airways Express routes. I just think that we should be consistent and uphold that same standard here.76.22.201.164 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not making sense here. All these airlines you listed publish their lists, and that's what we go by. VX does not publish but that doesn't mean it doesn't have hubs and FCs. See WP:DUCK. HkCaGu (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We had a mediation, and this was discussed for weeks. We came up with an answer, and implemented it. I believe LAX to be a *hub*, and not just a focus city, but I agreed to abide by the mediator's resolution. Please don't just jump in here and change it again, when nothing has changed with the routes. I won't go over the reasons again, as they are all documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a note, there are not "new people" involved in the management of the company's operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Official documents of the airline, while being primary sources, have never and will never be the only type of reliable source allowed. Indeed secondary sources are the preferred type of source on Wikipedia, though both are encouraged to be included. The previous debate resulted in the insertion of three secondary sources. The removal of such sourced information for no good reason except your own opinion on the matter is not acceptable. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way pee brains. Let Wikipedia be a place where a bunch of middle and high schoolers go around and speak for companies like they are more qualified than the CEO and I'll continue to sit back and laugh my ass off at the fact that every educational institution and corporation in the world mentions you specifically by name, not because you're a fantastic information source, but because you're the one site out there that can't and never will be trusted. 76.22.201.164 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to think about LAX as a "hub" again? it's been a while, and two more cities have been announced, both O/D LAX, and one of the two cities that aren't O/D LAX has been terminated. Ron Schnell 06:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Expert Needed & Dispute Tag discussion(August 2009)

.

Could somebody employed by either LAX or VX confirm or deny whether LAX is in fact a hub, base, or focus city for VX? Thanks. We need an official resolution to this dispute. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

VX does not use the terminology, but that doesn't mean it has no hubs or FCs. See WP:DUCK. HkCaGu (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a meditation for this in the previous 2 threads and it has been resolved (think??). 74.183.173.237 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HkCaGu is not said expert requested and your mediation never concluded but rather the mediator dropped it. Now we're going to finish it. Also, LAX only offers one other city on the West Coast now other than SFO for easterners to make connections to and the most recent PR about Ft. Lauderdale says that(and the route map backs this up) that all connecting service despite flights both to LAX and SFO is through SFO. I think that the current situation with that knowledge requires a renewed discussion. Plus in all of Wikipedia, more opinions matter than just the 2 or 3 involved in the prior mediation which I may add had numerous flaws in the way that it took place after going back and looking at it. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit and everyone has a right to be concerned, contribute, and discuss ;-) 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Focus city has nothing to do with connections. The fact remains that LAX flies to every possible city except Las Vegas. That's what makes it a focus city. Now tell me what's changed. HkCaGu (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LAX only serves one non-hub destination in the west and SFO serves five. Also, the connection thing is a change. Can we just leave the issue up for discussion for a little while and perhaps leave a note a project page asking for weigh-ins? I just want a fair shot and a fresh look like the last people got. I won't change anything in the article from its current state while that is taking place or rush it. I just want a few more opinions and if my concern proves invalid then that's fine. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1. A hub may be for connection. A focus city isn't. And VX isn't targeting the connection market. The SFO hub simply means it flies everywhere from there, not necessarily connection like the legacy carriers.

2. You keep counting destinations in the west. It's irrelevant. LAX cannot possibly serve SNA and SAN. LAS is deemed to close to LAX. Why you should place any weight for the "west" is beyond me. HkCaGu (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you allow the additional third party commentary or not? I'm not going to come into this to argue a stalemate with you like the last folks. I won't argue at all. Actually, it's not really up to you to allow it because I don't need your permission. My real question is are you going to make it easy or hard on everybody? All I'm asking is to invite third party commentary and whichever way they go is the way I will support. I just want more input than yours and the two or three people that seem to religiously accompany you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your tag has stayed for a few days, so how am I now not allowing discussion? And you're accusing other people of "religiously accompanying" me. It seems that you cannot accept that the tide of consensus has failed to turn your way. HkCaGu (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SNA, LAS, and SAN are all "LA Area" airports, so they would not be served from LAX, even as the HUB that it is. What you say about connections is simply not true. I just booked a flight from SEA-FLL, via LAX, right from their website. The fact that since the mediation they added both BOS and FLL, both *only* going to SFO *and* LAX lends more proof that LAX is a hub. Also (since the mediation), they announced ORD would be added from *BOTH* SFO *and* LAX, whenever it is added. I am (as I have been) willing to accept the term "focus city", although I strongly believe it to be a hub. As agreed when the previous mediation ended, if we have yet another mediation, I must insist that all three options are explored: focus city, hub, or nothing. I'm pretty sure it will come out as a hub. Ron Schnell 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I want a new group of fresh third part opinions above and beyond the three people who were involved last time which have so far been the only ones to comment and I will not back off until that happens because that's the beauty of Wikipedia :) I'll go ask for the third party advice myself and we'll just let that go ahead and get started and if we get an expert during that process then even better ;) Told you I wasn't here to get caught up in a bunch of argument or fight. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what you do, but check your facts before trying to solicit an opinion (example: your completely incorrect info about FLL connections).Ron Schnell 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The part of this debate that is always pathetic is the way these users pop out of the blue automatically with the assumption that they in fact are the experts and they know that LAX cannot possibly be one. I don't claim to know either, I just see that we have sources there that claim LAX is. These were verified as being reliable by an official WP mediator as seen above and nothing could be found to contradict the sources. I'm sorry you think different, but that's really quite irrelevant. Take your tantrum elsewhere. This topic doesn't need a tag as put on the main page because no legitimate claim has been made requiring reconsideration other than yet another person's private opinion that holds no water. If you can get an official from LAX or VX to state that LAX is not a focus city, hub or anything but a simple destination then great, but please don't waste our time with tags that make the information on the page look illegitimate because you simply want such a statement to prove your own agenda. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And there's the last of the three who always believe that they alone const. a consensus. And like I said, the mediation failed and never came to a conclusion since the mediator backed out. This is duly noted. Still waiting on fresh commentary above and beyond that. The new tag and a post on the Airline project will hopefully produce it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, @68.52.42.38, the fact that you are soliciting other opinions is fine and dandy, but I would recommend that you don't go around posting the same/similar messages on a lot of discussions about subjects relating to Virgin America, as there is a very good chance your attempts will be regarded as spam. That being said, I have followed Virgin America closely for about a year and a half and I fly them reguarly... I can't say I'm an expert, but I can offer you my opinion based on all that I have read and seen over the last year and a half. Now, I've reviewed a bunch of documents on Virgin America's website, and there is no evidence that LAX is a hub or a focus city - only SFO is credited as a hub (or in their words, a principal hub). Despite this, I don't believe it is necessarily inaccurate or deceiving of Wikipedia to state that LAX is a focus city for Virgin America. From LAX, Virgin America flies to just about every destination the airline flies, except for the closest (and unviable) ones (Orange County, San Diego, Las Vegas). From some destinations, Virgin America actually flies more daily flights to LAX than SFO, and you can connect just as easily through LAX if you're from an East coast destination and want to fly to Seattle or Las Vegas (or vice versa), not to mention the fact that you can connect to one of V Australia's flights if you really wanted to. There's no denying the fact that Virgin America has a major operation at LAX rivaling the one at SFO, and I think that it's quite an understatement if you consider LAX to be one of Virgin America's "destinations". Unless an official from Virgin America comes out and says that LAX is not a focus city or hub, then I say it's perfectly all right to call LAX a focus city. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert, but adding a comment to this discussion. In the book, An Introduction to Airline Economics (O'Connor, William E. Greenwood Publishing, 2001. ISBN 9780275969110), the author diffentiates between a hub-and-spoke route structure and hub airports. Essentially, the author states that a hub-and-spoke route structure does not determine a hub airport, which is determined by traffic volume measured in passenger enplanements per year. The Encarta definition[1] agrees with the book, in that the nature of the hub is not dependent upon an individual airline's route structure. However, the dictionary used will affect the connotation of the definition.[2] SFO and LAX both meet the hub airport definition as posed by the book and Encarta dictionary, which appears to match FAA classification of airports based on legal definitions (USC 49).[3]

O'Connor also quotes several definitions of hub-and-spoke route structures, which apparently is what drives this current debate:

A hub and spoke system consists of a set of "spoke" routes flying to and from minor markets into major "hub" cities. The major airline which creates the hub and spoke system flies some of these spokes itself. Commuter, local, or smaller airlines whom the major airline has co-opted into the system fly other spokes. A set of much longer and heavier regional spokes connects major traffic hubs and are all operated by the creator of the system. Indeed, the traffic potential of the regional spokes is the reason behind the creation of the system.

— William O'Connor, An Introduction to Airline Economics, page 23

Nothing on the Virgin America website supports that the establishment of operations at LAX is to feed the LAX-SFO route operated by Virgin America. It is even harder to make the argument for a hub and spoke route structure since most of the destinations from LAX are also destinations from SFO. The other definition O'Connor quotes states:

The basic notion of a hub and spoke system is that flights from many different cities converge on a single airport—the hub—at approximately the same time, and after giving the passenger sufficient time to make connections, all then leave the hub airport bound for different cities. Such a convergence of flights on a hub is often called a "connecting complex" or "connecting bank".

— ibid.

Based on what I've read in the sources available online is that Virgin America targets routes with a high ratio of business travelers, which would virtually eliminate any argument for the company establishing hub-and-route structure versus a, "...point-to-point transcontinental business model," as stated by the company's CEO.[4] The only references to hub on the Virgin America website are from a Chicago Tribune article, and from pages discussing the CEO's experience. I think that arguing that SFO and LAX are hubs after the style of hub-and-spoke route structures does not stand up under the available definitions. --Born2flie (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good research. However, I think the definitions you quote are a bit dated, or just not in synch with the realities of current hub-and-spoke systems. Surely, one would not argue that Delta has a hub in Atlanta, yet it would fail some of the same points you mention. Another point you make seems to disallow the notion of dual hubs, which obviously exist (while other points you mention seem to allow it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are very vague, through the use of words like some, other, and another, etc.. Perhaps you could be more specific into which points, and how they are confusing or inadequate. To me, it appears that the information I've presented does not cooperate with your conclusions about the information you would like to present in this article. I didn't arrive intending to argue one way or another, I answered a request to the Aviation WikiProject in order to look at the situation to see if I could offer any other information, which I have. If you wish to define a hub as you see it, then you have to provide a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. In that regards, I apologize that I was not able to help you accomplish your goal. Out. --Born2flie (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that a quick google search will provide several reliable news sources that state SFO is VX's hub (I'm not going to go into the knowledge these sources have related to aviation terms since that really isn't our role); and, that the absence of hub information on Virgin America's website isn't to say that they do not exist. In fact as I think I've stated before somewhere on this page, Virgin America's 'About Us' page does list its base of operations as SFO. Though this isn't the same thing as saying it's a hub it's also not the same thing as saying it's simply the location of its corporate headquarters. There doesn't seem to be any similar up-to-date statement from the airline declaring that it does not run a hub and spoke operation. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If passengers get off the VX flight and get on another flight (then it is a hub), if passengers just go home or to work then it is not being used as a hub. A good sign that it is a hub is if the airline advertises connection or has code shares with other airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm joining this discussion in response to the requests placed on WP:AIR & WP:AVIATION. I concur with Born2Flie's assessment. I would also go a little further and observe that trying to define VA's operations in terms of a hub-and-spoke system constitutes original research in that it imposes a definition contrary to explicit and citable information on its own organizational approach. This is a case where a primary source can be expected to be very reliable – who would know better than they themselves. Most reliable secondary sources would be simply parroting the self-description (although it would be perfectly acceptable to use such a source instead, if you have one). NcSchu correctly pointed out (cf. his post of 18:49, 22 August 2009) that all VA does is list its "base of operations" as SFO. The fact that secondary sources sometimes imprecisely refer to this as a "hub" does not mean that VA is using something other than the "point-to-point transcontinental business model" they say they are using.

While a fair point can be made that LAX is a "focus city", the arbitrator clearly pointed out that this is nevertheless still founded on OR and synthesis. The fact is that when such is challenged, those editors wishing to keep it are obliged to source it or let it be removed – at least until such time as a reliable source can be found to substantiate it for reintroduction. Remember, Wikipedia essentially presents what others have published; it has no deadline and we are not responsible for capturing absolute truth – as per the opening paragraph of WP:V. It would therefore seem best to me to list only SFO as a hub and leave all else aside as speculation pending future information. (The fact that LAX is the second largest destination and point of origin of VA flights can be addressed in the text body.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a well thought out point, and it's tough to argue against. If the point of WP is not to publish "truth", but only to collect what others have published, it is difficult to argue that it is okay to even state SFO is a hub. But there comes a point where the route diagram on the airline's own website speaks more than even the specific commentary by the airline itself. There are many reasons that an airline might avoid making an explicit statement about whether they utilize a hub-and-spoke, as opposed to point-to-point, many of which are political or parts of various negotiations. But nobody actually believes that executives sitting in a Virgin America board room don't call SFO a hub. I suppose that's why you think it's okay to include SFO as a hub, despite some very good arguments you make to the contrary.

• Sfohub.jpg

  Virginamerica.com 09-08-09

I believe that LAX qualifies in the same way (with the same caveats), and don't understand why you would be okay with one and not the other. The route map looks almost the same from LAX, with the exception of the destinations that are too close to LAX to fly to.

Ron Schnell 19:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m not altogether against using “hub” for SFO. Correct me if I mis-remember, but I believe one of the sources does just that. I’m also aware that English is a sloppy language and people will often use imprecise language – especially in the absence of a precise, fits-all-cases definition – in a slang-wise fashion, as long as the gist of what is meant to be communicated is clear. In the case of an infobox, it’s hard to be precise anyway when the options cover only 95% of cases; the infobox is just a quick-look, and it’s the text that needs to define issues more precisely. If the editors here want to accept a consensus to use “hub” as a colloquial synonym for “base of operations”, that’s fine by me. It only draws on WP:IAR very slightly at worst. On the other hand, trying to define LAX as a hub or focus city without a whiff of reliable sourcing is clearing speculation, however educated the guesswork may be.

As for “WP is not TRVTH”, that was not my decision and it has never quite set well with me; I’m an engineer, so I prefer truth and accuracy by nature. Nonetheless, in dealing with contentious issues on Wikipedia over the last few years, I have come to develop an appreciation that it is a useful discussion boundary to place on editors to prevent (or, failing that, end) editwarring. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, the presumption is that reliable sources will appear eventually and the issue can (hopefully) be laid to rest at that time. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also synthesis to use articles that explain differences in airline operations with a statement from a CEO stating that VX does not use a hub and spoke model. We do have explicit sources that support the contrary, however. And arguing that these sources 'don't know the correct terminology' is original research. Wikipedia also has explicit guidelines that sway against solely using a company's own statements as references in its own article. So far no secondary sources have been found to support the company's statement. This is my beef, yet no one ever addresses these basic problems that must be corrected. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if we’re going to get down to wikilawyering, the assumption that common slang is never used in the place of accurate terminology would be OR. Look, there are two issues I see here: One is what to put in the text and what to put in the infobox. Since infobox templates are rather limited in their options, I think putting SFO there as a “hub” is okay. As for the text, you have reliable sources for what VA says and for what others say, right? Then just put in that “VA claims to be …, but XYZ identifies SFO as VA’s hub.” If you come up with a VA source that claims SFO as a hub, then the formula becomes “VA claims to be …, but also identifies SFO as its hub.” That’s the long and short of it, after all, and we are permitted to report what a subject says about itself (we just don’t have to take its word as the last word). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

Since former airports continues to be removed, we need to color-code the terminated airports/cities. For example most airlines in the table format have terminated destinations in grey. I think that we should make the terminated airports/cities grey colored. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how hard it is to designate different colors in a table? —Compdude123 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Important News Article

Can someone add a section referencing this news article about how a man boarded a virgin america flight with a boarding pass (different name / different flight date).

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/01/local/la-me-0701-airport-security-20110630 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.238.36 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that really relevant to the airline itself? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge Virgin America destinations into this article

I think Virgin America destinations ought to be merged into this article because the destination list is very short, and can be seen in entirety without scrolling up or down. Because of the shortness of this page, I think it would fit quite nicely into the destinations section of this article. Please state whether you support or do not support this decision. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support, more so since this article does not conform to wiki rules. 116.71.17.172 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, not sufficiently long enough to overwhelm the main airline article, especially in the more compact table format. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support It was better with the table in this article as there was barely enough destinations to support the separate article. Merging it in it's current table won't overwhelm the main article. Sb617 (Talk) 02:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support As thread starter, I support this merger too for the reasons given above. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Merging inhibits expanding the article with the history of destinations, yet the airline is not that legendary. Nevertheless, the article contains more than 10 destinations served, and is therefore in accordance with the project guidelines. Have you forgotten them?Jetstreamer (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much in the way of terminated destinations. The airline is barely five years old, and you'd hope that they'd be adding more destinations than they'd be terminating. I think it wouldn't be for another 2-3 years before the airline has expanded enough to the point where we have to split off the destinations again. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is perfectly long enough to be stand-alone, like all other destinations articles. Speed74 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support its a modest size table and would not overburden the parent article. And the parent article contains information on the subject of destinations, and would still need a summary of the subject even if that was moved to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It continues the general airline format all around wikipedia and it is not a big deal to have it in a different article. Cali4529 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems pointless to have a totally different sub-article that can be viewed in entirety without scrolling up and down. In my opinion, if the amount of destinations can be viewed without having to scroll up or down, even at a low screen resolution, then it's short enough that it fits quite nicely in the parent article. Like I said already, it won't be for another 2-3 years before the airline has enough destinations to have a separate destinations list. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask why you [Compdude123] are so interested in this subject because you act like you will die unless this change happens. Why can we not leave it as is? It continues the general format of all airlines on wikipedia and it does no one harm by keeping them separate. Cali4529 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's that big of a deal, sometimes I make things into a bigger deal than they really are. Since there doesn't really seem to be an agreement, and this has been posted for 2 weeks, I think it's about time to close this discussion. If anyone else wants to weigh in, great, but we don't seem to be getting to any sort of agreement. What the heck, we're saving us the task of having to split this destinations list off again. Even still, it's not clear to me how many destinations it takes for a destination list to be split off into another article. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Merging give reasons and a method for splitting and guidance on merging. Having just read the latter I notice that reason No. 4 for merging is "Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." which I think rather applies here. Here you have a table of locations that has no context other than that which the reader can discern from the article titlefirst line. The guidance gives reasons for against merging of which "1.The resulting article is too long or 'clunky'" doesn't seem to apply. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It was decided long ago that destinations lists would do well separated from the main article if longer than about 10 destinations. No reason to change that. Speed74 (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The airline project guideline refers to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porter_Airlines_destinations where the concensus was to delete the separate destinations article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

10 destinations? That's all it takes to warrant splitting off destinations list? If that's so why isn't that stated here? Some of us haven't been on WP long enough to remember this being the consensus. Anyway, further discussion on this should take place on the project talk page, not here. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this issue on the WikiProject talk page, please post further comments there. It's not like I'm going to die if the destinations article isn't merged back into this one; I just want clarification on our policies. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed due to lack of consensus. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)