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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply

List of airline and airport lounges (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

And the subject of this list is notable because...? It's verifiable, but none of these lounges are notable, and the whole subject is better suited to a travel guide, which Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOT. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Useful at Wikivoyage, but here it is cruft. sst ✈ 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No indication of notability. (Well, the Admirals Club probably is but one lounge doth not a list make) — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 11:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN, being covered by sources such as The Five Best; The world's best; The Complete Travel Detective. Wikivoyage is a different project and is a joke IMO as they bizarrely don't have articles about airports, let alone lounges. The key concept of an encyclopedia is that it covers everything and the only issue for a topic like this is the appropriate level at which to cover it. The worst case would be merger of selected examples into the main article airport lounge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. ( talk) 12:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Just below I made a suggestion on how the information could be covered and preserved. Borock ( talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Contrary to the claim above, I don't think the topic does pass WP:LISTN. Sure, airport lounges are a notable topic - especially if you design or study or rank them - but cites picking out a handful of good ones only demonstrate the notability of the good ones, not of an exhaustive and unranked listing. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete My understanding of the purpose of lists on WP is that they are mainly to direct readers to articles. None of these lounges seem to have articles, or to be likely to. The fact that they exist could be, IMO, best covered in the articles on the individual airports. Nobody is going to fly to an airport because of the lounge, but people interested in an airport might want to know about its lounges. Despite WP:How to, some topics are inherently mainly how-to. Airports, since their articles are most interesting to potential users. Borock ( talk) 14:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete- this is listcruft that belongs in a travel directory, not an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I originally split this article from the Airport lounge article - which it utterly dominated. Thinking in hindsight, the overly comprehensive nature and frankly rather poor presentation and organization played a part the decision to do that. There is pertinent information there, it's just not presented in a way that is terribly useful to a reader. The best course of action would be the distribute the information around the relevant airport and airline articles. Therefore, it would be best if the article could be kept around in projectspace while that can be done. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete, but keep info in some form as per AnotherNewAccount's request. Borock's point is extremely cogent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per previous. rayukk | talk 17:22, 3 November 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.