Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 June 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 18}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 June 18|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

4 April 2024

Priyanka Choudhary – Speedy endorsed as a perennial DRV request. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Priyanka Choudhary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Although the last deletion review was closed only a few days ago. We have been asked to come here with respect to the notice made by @Stifle in their talk page: [1]. As already stated by us several times in several places, Priyanka Choudhary has passed WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV through her various roles. There is significant coverage supporting the same in the latest deleted version of Priyanka Choudhary deleted by @Stifle on 3rd April 2024 at 9:43 am. Infact there was an ongoing discussion which involved @C.Fred, myself Amma&Papa and @ManaliJain in the talk page of the subject which clearly proved that the article did have new information on the newer roles with reliable sources which made the subject notable. So, please kindly review the deletion and restore the article so that it can be subjected to a new AFD where a new consensus can be reached. Honestly, it is "unfair" that the Wikipedia admins are constantly penalizing the other editors who have no connection with the past and would like to create an article of Priyanka Choudhary by following the community guidelines while there are so many articles like Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia which are kept even though the subjects aren't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amma&Papa (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse If you think Abhishek Kumar (actor), Isha Malviya, and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia aren't notable you are welcome to nominate those articles for AfDs as well. It's unfair to the Wikipedia community that we can't make a final decision that this actress is not notable and instead have to keep wasting our time relitigating it again and again and again. Finally, who is we? Wikipedia accounts must be used by only one person. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Speedy endorse per the many previous DRV’s on the subject and her listing at WP:DEEPER. It doesn’t appear that anything has changed since the previous DRV a few weeks ago. No objection to creation of a draft to go through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 16:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse the closure of the previous DRV (?) and speedy close this DRV as out of proccess as nothing new has been brought. Per the instructions at DEEPER, the appellant is welcome to prepare a draft they believe would satisfy a prima facie review with new sources that have not been previously addressed or considered in prior AfDs or DRVs. I understand that they don't agree with the decision in that regard of the previous draft, but there is nothing new here. This concluded less than a month ago and appellants bring no new sources to this DRV, just a stick, unfortunately. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Priyanka Choudhary

Priyanka Choudhary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Although the last deletion review was closed only a few days ago. We have been asked to come here with respect to the notice made by Stifle in their talk page: [2]. As already stated by us several times in several places, Priyanka Choudhary has passed WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV through her various roles. There is significant coverage supporting the same in the latest deleted version of Priyanka Choudhary deleted by Stifle on 3rd April 2024 at 9:43 am.

Infact there was an ongoing discussion which involved C.Fred, myself Amma&Papa and ManaliJain in the talk page of the subject which clearly proved that the article did have new information on the newer roles with reliable sources which made the subject notable. So, please kindly review the deletion and restore the article so that it can be subjected to a new AFD where a new consensus can be reached. Amma&Papa (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

3 April 2024

List of British Airways destinations – Closure endorsed. Interested editors may want to consider the various ways forward that have been suggested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of British Airways destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Before I begin, I wanted to make two points: If anyone thinks I'm judging people based on their editing background again, please call me out. I agree with what Liz said here and will explain below: not every editor who is interested in this subject was aware or participated in that RFC. The closer also brought up the lists of airlines and destinations in airport articles (example). In my opinion, a list of an airline's destinations and a list of its destinations from an individual airport are in the same category. Historically, however, we have treated them separately on this site, and I don't want to muddy the waters by talking about both right now. First I'll address the discussions that occurred prior to this AfD. For a list of them, please see the top of my initial statement in the AfD. I believe most of the people who are actually interested in these lists and edit them often had never heard of or visited the Village Pump (where the RfC took place) or Articles for Deletion. I was the same way for many years. It's true that WT:AIRLINES was notified about the RfC and most of the AfDs, but it appears that most interested editors do not check that page regularly. Also, the AfDs up to this point generally addressed the lists of minor airlines like Syrian Air and Air Polonia, which few people probably were monitoring and contributing to. This AfD, however, covered several major airlines like British Airways and Emirates. 43 people !voted in it – compared to 24 in the RfC and 23 in the most-attended AfD since 2023 – and some people said they had contributed to the lists. Therefore, it seems like it was the first of the 28 AfDs since 2023 to attract a healthy amount of participation from interested parties, which is what we desire. That being said, I don't think we should ignore all of those past discussions. The RfC creator and AfD nominators who notified WT:AIRLINES did what they were supposed to, and I don't know what else they could've done to attract more attention to the respective discussions. (As to whether an RfC can be cited to delete articles, that was addressed by the subsequent AN discussion.) So if contributors to the AfD thought the past discussions were relevant, I believe we should respect that opinion, and if they thought they were irrelevant (see the next paragraph), I think we should respect that as well. Now I'll analyze the arguments in this AfD. In my opinion, most people who !voted Delete provided sound policy-based rationales. Specifically, parts of WP:NOT were cited: NOTINDISCRIMINATE, NOTCATALOG, NOTNEWS, and NOTTRAVEL. Most also cited the RfC/prior AfDs, which as I said I don't think we should ignore. On the other hand, most editors who !voted Keep/Merge made relatively weak arguments: USEFUL, EFFORT, HARMLESS, and that the lists are well-referenced (rebutted by WP:VNOT). Several people added that the RfC was six years ago and had limited participation, and that consensus can change. These are valid points; however, the arguments that these editors made for keeping the lists were still weak. These were the main counterarguments made by Keep/Merge !voters that I identified: The lists are actually discriminate because there are clear inclusion criteria. – I tried rebutting this point (Naturally I think my rebuttals were sound, but I will leave that to your interpretation.) If context in the form of prose is provided, NOTCATALOG will no longer apply. – No one gave a concrete explanation of what sort of context would justify keeping any of the lists. The lists convey key information about the airlines, such as ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. – I tried rebutting this point This is a trainwreck. – If editors were referring to the fact that some lists had more references than others, VNOT would apply. The cited sections of NOT do not explicitly address this class of lists, and NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would include this information. – Draken Bowser and I tried rebutting these points Ultimately, I believe that on the basis of the arguments in this AfD, there was a consensus to Delete all. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse (uninvolved). As I said on Liz's talk page, there was no other way that this could have been closed, and was well explained in the closing statement. There were policy-based and non-policy based arguments on each side but none of them were convincing enough that they persuaded significant numbers to change their mind. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse (involved, voted delete). Very well written closing statement and there was clearly no consensus. With the high attendance already, there was indication consensus would not form if relested. While I believe this article is at odds with global consensus in the 2018 RFC, several users disagree and provided policy-based reasoning. Frank Anchor 19:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Rerun the 2018 RfC, and put the AfD aside until we've reached a consensus on the guideline. I agree with the closing admin that the broadly-participated AfD effectively vacates the six year old RfC, and the appellant seems in agreement as well. But if that's the case, we should be running a fresh RfC about this, with notice given to all the original participants, all the AfD participants, Village Pump, and WT:AIRLINES. If the new RfC reaches the same conclusion as the old one, it can be treated as a DRV, with all 153 articles deleted. If the new RfC concludes that such articles belong here (provided they are properly sourced), the AfD will be treated as a "Keep", and there will be peace in the land for at least six months. This subject involves too many pages, and is close to the heart of too many editors, to keep going back and forth between AfD and DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I would support re-running the RFC as well. Consensus can change over six years. Frank Anchor 22:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) OwenX, I think a new RfC could be appropriate. My only concern is the following. You say that a new RfC could be treated as a DRV for this particular AfD. That sounds reasonable, but what impact would the RfC have on the other 34 stand-alone lists and any new ones that may be created? A major issue that arose after the 2018 RfC was that RfCs are not a deletion venue. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The question of how to handle those 34 standalone lists should be brought up in this RfC. If the consensus is to remove those lists, it's a simple formality to do so per the new guideline, with one extra AfD if that's what is decided. Or we can just tag those 34 pages with a link to the RfC, and skip the superfluous AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) This all seem far too much of people trying to act like lawyers and insist on complex rules around what should not be included which only people with the most time will spend reading up on. I (and probably many others) joined Wikipedia as an editor to ensure everyone had free access to knowledge. If I knew about something that was objective, non-offensive, appeared in books in a national reference library and likely to be of interest to a wide audience, then I should try to make that knowledge available to others. Now it seems we need endless arguments around what counts as important, adding info to Wikipedia is becoming increasingly painful and it's just not fun to do this any more. If you reject somebody once, they forgive you, reject them twice and maybe they try again.... but keep rejecting people and deleting what volunteers do out of goodwill, and the atmosphere of Wikipedia becomes a very different place. A society that has endless and complex debates involving technicalities about burning books to achieve purity is telling future authors to go elsewhere. Pmbma (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) We all support making knowledge freely accessible to everyone. But not all knowledge is encyclopedic. I, for example, find business directories and train timetables very useful. They're objective, non-offensive, appear in books in a national reference library or in railway operators publications, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Do airline destinations belong in an encyclopedia? I don't know, but I won't feel rejected if the community decides they don't. I appreciate the need to keep volunteer contributors happy to retain them, but Wikipedia will not sacrifice its primary pillar just to appease a group of editors. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I generally concur as over the course of my period of participating on here, different editors would steer me in different ways whether by reverting entire edits of mine based on the 5% that they disagreed with, address my edits with varying definitions on what is/is not encyclopedic, or showing me to the WikiProject's Guidelines, which in themselves have changed in that time. I can compose and edit content on different pages in an identical fashion, and it'd be a toss-up on whether a given user will assure me that it's encyclopedic, or confront me that it isn't. Between the AfD or in general, as often as these different editors will cite guidelines or policies, it comes off as less about the policies and rather which policies have been cherry-picked to suit the editor's opinion, whether it is for or against you. One demographic of editors tells you to do one thing but another demographic decides that's wrong and proceeds to delete/revert what you do. I don't believe this environment of confusing and discouraging users from contributing is what is intended to be fostered here, but perhaps I'm wrong? Despite saying that, I'll offer my input that I believe it's impossible to take an action on airline destination tables while also not taking the same action or stance on airport destination tables, in that they should not be treated separately or inconsistently which was one of my main issues. They generally serve the same purpose, although only airline destinations will have retained historical information, such as previously-served destinations. Either keep them all or delete them all, but of course given how wide and encompassing the notion was to delete 152 Lists after the 400+ that were already largely deleted, calling it daunting after adding the numerous upon numerous number of airport articles with destination tables is a huge understatement. ChainChomp2 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse close, mark the 2018 RfC as historical and not (no longer?) reflecting community consensus, and put all the recently-deleted similar articles back until and unless a well-advertised RfC returns a consensus to delete such articles, Per OwenX. More often than not, deleting well-maintained and longstanding articles because "Wikipedia has evolved" comes across as both pretentious and NIGYYSOBish at the same time. I have no dog in this fight, but it certainly seems like a lot of people have commensurately strong feelings. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Comment Separate deletions of over 260+ list articles are recorded in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/AfD_record, with many of them stated to be poorly referenced and/or heavily relying on one source. Including two well attended multi-deletions 1 and 2. One of the multi deletions were endorsed on the DRV. There would need to be separate DRVs on the 260+ deleted lists, as many had varying qualities. Coastie43 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm entirely unimpressed by the sequence of events: 1) Argue for a policy change, 2) Delete the worst offenders that maybe should have been deleted anyways for other reasons, 3) Go for bigger fish with a poorly attended "gotcha!" nom that succeeds because no one realizes what's going on, and 4) When the next bigger nom fails because rank-and-file editors have woken up and object, complain that consensus is already well established. Not saying that this is intentional or deceptive on anyone's part, but if I were going to try and cynically destroy a class of articles, this is precisely the playbook I would use. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC) So these articles will just get deleted anyway now that's very unfortunate. Despite what the voting results were. CHCBOY (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Your comment reminds me of a conversation between FOARP, Rosbif73, and Tserton in the List of Eurocypria Airlines destinations AfD in May 2023. FOARP laid out their reasoning there for their approach. (I don't mean to canvass by pinging FOARP; I just thought that since they started so many of the AfDs, they might be interested in this discussion.) In February I tested the waters with the larger airlines by starting an AfD on the United Airlines, American Airlines, and Lufthansa lists. The outcome was to delete* – though just five people took part. (*A deletion review is ongoing.) Sunnya343 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) @Jclemens - Advertising these AFDs on every single relevant project page is hardly hiding them. Deleting the worst offenders is hardly a reason for not working your way up the list. Passing an RFC is hardly just "arguing". I'm not feeling the WP:AGF in your comment here. FOARP (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I didn't say "hiding," although I didn't comment at all about how well the AfDs were advertised, but I did specifically include the caveat Not saying that this is intentional or deceptive on anyone's part to specifically address ABF concerns. Even if you advertised stuff on all the relevant project pages, that doesn't include everyone who cares nor does it ensure that they understand what happens when they don't participate, and that is why I specifically had the United/American/Lufthansa AfD in mind in my Step 3. That's a significant enough AfD that the rank-and-file editors who use those pages are going to show up howling about new AfDs on the basis that their ox has just been gored. This is what I perceive this AfD and associated kerfuffle to be: step 4. To clarify, I have no strong opinion on whether these should be in the encyclopedia or not and have never used Wikipedia for anything travel related at all, despite this being my 19th year here. What I do have strong feelings on is that WP:NOT is not supposed to be a political football, by which one can make an argument that something falls under it and hence must be deleted as a matter of policy. That's not really an appropriate take in an IAR world. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but your clear implication here is this was something that was hidden from people, that the previous AFDs were somehow sneaked through just to get a pre-determined result ("a poorly attended "gotcha!" nom that succeeds because no one realizes what's going on"). I literally posted one of them to CENT! And got told off for doing so! What exactly more was I supposed to do to advertise these AFDs? What instead happened is when the people who are relatively uninvolved in this subject area voted in AFDs, the AFDs were passed as delete. When fandom got involved we had a wave of essentially "I like this" !votes which the closer was not willing to go against. To me all this shows is the general worthlessness of an RFC on any topic, or indeed even our core policies, in the face of mass-voting at AFDs by fandom, however groundless. Which is fine because the split between "people whose hobby is Wikipedia" and "people whose hobby is XXXX which is why they care about XXXX being on Wikipedia" is a very old one. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC) I also wanted to stress that my goal with the United/Lufthansa/American AfD was precisely for lots of people to participate. That's what I was expecting by nature of the airlines involved. I left this comment at the top of the AfD: "I am taking a conservative approach here because these are the lists of three major Western airlines, which may attract more attention on the English Wikipedia than other airlines. I want to give people the opportunity to concentrate on and discuss a small number of such lists before more are nominated for deletion." Sunnya343 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC) This may sound harsh, and I respect the people who created this content. But I wanted to add that it's not like 260+ articles of the nature of History of British Airways were deleted. We're talking about airline route maps in list form. Moreover, the articles were not deleted on spurious grounds. Many nominators wrote detailed rationales that went beyond the 2018 RfC, and in some AfDs 20+ people participated. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I disagree on your last statement in the introduction which you said: "there was a consensus to Delete all." I counted 18 votes for Delete and 29 to Keep on the AFD. So 11 more voted for Keeping these articles CHCBOY (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Comment To everyone, a deletion discussion is not a vote. To quote from linked page "When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, but do not let them become your only determining factor. While polling forms an integral part of several processes." Coastie43 (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse, accurate closure of no consensus, and I agree with others above who say that this highly-attended AFD now overrides/vacates the 2018 RFC. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse - There are at least three questions here: Should Wikipedia have tables of airline destinations? Should the closure of the subject AFD as No Consensus be endorsed or overturned? If the latter, how should it be overturned? (That is one question.) Should there be a new RFC on whether Wikipedia should have tables of airline destinations? We are only trying to answer the second question, whether the closure should be endorsed or overturned. By my count, there were 22 Keep votes and 18 Delete votes. That looks like No Consensus. When there is no apparent consensus, some editors will argue that a consensus should be found because the strength of the arguments in one way or the other was greater. The question for DRV is not whether a different closure might have been valid. We should only overturn if User:Liz's close of No Consensus was invalid. I see no way that anyone should argue that the close of No Consensus was wrong. So it should be endorsed. Should Wikipedia have tables of airline destinations? My view is that it should not, based partly on Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and primarily because airline destinations change, and providing an up-to-date summary of something that is constantly changing is not encyclopedic. But that is not the issue in this DRV. Should there be a new RFC on whether Wikipedia should have tables of airline destinations. My view is yes. Consensus can change, and some editors obviously think that airline destinations are encyclopedic. The lack of consensus for this AFD suggests that a new RFC might be useful, and would not make the situation any more confusing. There should be a new RFC. But that is not the issue in this DRV. We should have a new RFC, and in the meantime we should endorse the closure of No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Robert McClenon, when you say tables of airline destinations, are you including the lists of airline destinations in airport articles? Sunnya343 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Aeroflot destinations has closed as Keep, further solidifying that the 2018 RfC does not seem to reflect current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC) I personally find the Keep arguments there to be weak, e.g. that the information is not available elsewhere or that the list is encyclopedic just because of Aeroflot's Cold War history. Nevertheless, I won't bring it to DRV; I think the discussion we're having now is what was needed. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Precisely--this is just more input into the larger issue, not an indication there's anything problematic with this close--it's just another piece of the larger puzzle. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The DRV for List of United Airlines destinations was just recently closed as a endorsed delete, with one user suggesting if there was a new RFC that overturned the 2018 decision, that may increase the chances of a number of already deleted lists being overturned. Coastie43 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Comment. Given that I believe the lists violate WP:NOT, for me the only distinguishing factor among the stand-alone lists is the presence of prose in the article, because that prose would have to be copied to the parent article in accordance with WP:CWW, and then we'd have to redirect rather than delete the stand-alone list to comply with WP:PATT. Therefore, the whole process up to this point of doing one AfD after another with essentially the same rationale each time, never made much sense to me. FOARP added a WP:CORP-based argument to their AfDs, but that argument is based on notability and so it does not preclude merging the lists into the parent articles. For instance, the list of US Airways destinations was deleted in this AfD. It was argued that the references: 1) failed WP:CORP (again, a notability issue), and 2) were published before the date given for the list (valid point). To address these points, we could just merge the list into the parent article, cite a route map like this one from December 2013, and write, "This is a list of all the cities US Airways was flying to in December 2013". I do think that's a textbook case of WP:IINFO, and it appears that most of the contributors to that AfD would agree. But as people have said, the consensus on this matter is no longer clear. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Comment Overturn to delete and also a no-consensus AFD cannot overturn an RFC - Nobody has even tried to justify the lamentable sourcing of these articles, which all ultimately originate with the airlines themselves, typically by performing a WP:OR analysis of different versions of the company websites at different times to say when certain services were and were not offered. If the topic is ever discussed at all, the supposed encyclopaedic nature of this content is used as a justification for just never providing sourcing that doesn't come from the airline themselves. Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT split-out articles have to have stand-alone notability, but none of these articles do because reliable, secondary sources never cover these destinations as a list except in run-of-the-mill business-activity articles of exactly the kind that WP:NCORP tells us can't establish notability. This is the equivalent of having an article listing all the Burger King franchises that were operating on 9 June 1992. These are clear WP:NOT fails. I strongly suspect that holding another RFC on this is just going to endorse the 2018 one, but when it comes back to AFD the airline fandom will again try to stymie deletion because any reason is used to ignore RFC results. I also totally don't understand how a no-consensus close at AFD is being interpreted as requiring the re-running of an RFC. The thing about no-consensus closes is, they don't decide anything, especially they don't negate the entire basis that the AFD was brought on. If AFD !voters choose to ignore NOT that doesn't mean that NOT itself is cancelled, does it? In terms of the close, it should be overturned to delete because it failed to give sufficient weight to a reasoned RFC attended largely by uninvolved editors as compared to fan-base voters at AFD, gave too much weight to keep !votes that were ultimately "I like this" or "It's encyclopaedic", failed to engage with any discussion of the article quality at all, and failed to close consistently with the 26 preceding RFCs which have already deleted more than half of the articles in this category, leaving us with a mess. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Not all of them have only one source from the airline themselves. The British Airways destinations list is not a page with only the one source. Having an actual look at it there is 267 references at the moment from countless different sources. It's a very well kept article for Wikipedia too. CHCBOY (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) @CHCBOY: - The BA website is the source for the overwhelming majority of cites, it's just been cited many times. The rest are to industry press or run-of-the-mill coverage of BA announcements about future plans. See also the review of VietJet sources below. FOARP (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC) There is also secondary sources about former destinations that were once served by BA. These are good records for certain interest. CHCBOY (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I don't see any. The nearest this gets to anything historical is 404 links to the "Explore our past" section of the BA website. Otherwise we're looking at industry press (e.g., trade directories) or run-of-the-mill press coverage simply relaying information that came straight from the airline, which is of course ultimately the only source any of this information could ever come from anyway. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Have a look again they are there. There is even reference from a book with one. Anyway we never going to agree so time to move on good bye. CHCBOY (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) The book about Christchurch international airport? That was published by Christchurch International Airport? Yeah, again I'm not seeing how this is an independent, reliable source, even before we examine whether it gave any significant coverage of the subject (which seems unlikely, because it's about Christchurch international airport). We literally have a random photo from ebay cited as a source for two of the destinations on this list. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) This is a courtesy ping to Just Step Sideways (formerly known as Beeblebrox), who as the initiator of the 2018 RfC may be interested in this discussion. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse. As one who supports the creation and maintenance of these lists, and one who has created several of them, I concur with those who argue that the most recent discussion was legitimately closed as "No consensus". SiniyaEdita (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn and rerun RfC. Few of the keep !votes even put forth any P&G-based keep rationale at all. Vague assertions that "it's encyclopedic" (in what encyclopedia?!) are no better than ILIKEIT. The keep !votes also did not adequately rebut the delete arguments that these lists fail NOT, including NOTCATALOG, and PRIMARY. The policy requirement that articles be based on secondary sources, and that product availability details must be both sourced to independent sources and be encyclopedic(*) was entirely ignored by keep !voters, who instead focused on the fact that these entries were reliably sourced. Since this is policy that was brought up multiple times in the AfD, retention of the article should have been predicated on keep !voters addressing how these lists were generally citable to secondary independent sources. (*)Of the handful that even attempted to engage with NOTCATALOG, there is no defense of why such a list--even when it is for a defunct line, which clearly is irrelevant since content doesn't become magically encyclopedic the second a business folds--isn't analogous to should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable and isn't subject to An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Completely agree that the sourcing and notability issues with these articles was completely ignored in favour of a vague and pointless discussion without any reference to P&Gs of whether this is the kind of thing should included if there were independent reliable sources showing notability. This has happened repeatedly in the history of these articles - contrary to what it has been written above they have been controversial throughout their entire history with discussions happening regularly as to whether they were suitable content back to 2006. Let's just look at one of these articles chosen at random: List of VietJet Air destinations - what are the sources? Aeroroutes.com (a blog/industry press), routesonline.com(a blog/industry press), vietnamplus.vn (based on a VietJet Air press announcement), travelandtourworld.com (based on a press-release), the JetArena Twitter feed (based on a press-release), networkthoughts.com (again, based on a press-release), VietJetAir.com (i.e., the company's own website - this is the source for the majority of content), and Anna.aero (a blog/industry press). At the very best these are industry press or based on press-releases, at worst they are blogs or 404 links, but in every case they are just relaying an announcement from VietJet Air about something that will happen, not something that has happened. This is run-of-the-mill coverage of product/service-offerings of exactly the kind that we ignore when it comes from MacDonalds, Microsoft, or Moulinex. Not a single one of them is a independent reliable source giving significant coverage to listing the destinations of VietJet Air. No such source exists, because the only source for this information that will ever exist is the company itself. FOARP (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Comment. I hope I'm not bludgeoning, but I wanted to make clear what the subject of this debate is. I don't think anyone can deny that the content in question is nothing more than a direct reproduction of airline-destination maps in list form. That's it. Even for former destinations, it's a matter of finding old destination maps and picking out the cities that don't appear on the current map. I concur with ChainChomp2 that any future discussion ought to address the lists in airport articles as well. Those lists are also direct reproductions of airline-route maps in list form. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Comment Overturn don't overturn, I don't think it matters. Certainly this AfD appears as contentious as the RFC from 2018. I suggest running a new RFC to determine current community consensus. If there is consensus to keep such articles then the ones that have been deleted should probably be restored, and if consensus is against these articles they should be removed enmass. Either way it will put the issue to rest. (addendum - Reading through the comments I see I'm just making a poor copy of Robert McClenon arguments, I endorse all their points). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC) " If there is consensus to keep such articles then the ones that have been deleted should probably be restored" - Let's recall that of the 260 airline destination articles deleted so far, 82 listed either only one or no sources, and 120 were sourced only to the company website and a few sources that were manifestly blogs/industry press. This was also true of nearly all (and likely all?) of the remaining articles but less easily demonstrated. I think the assumption is that if we simply decide that catalogues of company services are not a violation of NOT that all the other grounds for deletion would fall away at the same time, or that the NOT issues were the only problem with them. Why would that be the case? These articles are not sourced to any source independent of the company that provides the services listed in them - is the proposal also to create an exception to WP:CORP so that the services offered by airlines alone of all company services are exempt? With the only real reason for doing so being because they have a fan-base that is active on Wikipedia? FOARP (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC) The WP:CORP issue is legitimate, but the solution to it is easy: merge the lists into the parent articles. That leaves us with the WP:NOT problems. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) In nearly every case the articles already have a list of destinations of the airline to the appropriate level of detail for an Encyclopaedia article so the destination articles can be safely deleted, though obviously listing every destination is undue and unnecessary. WP:CORP was hardly the only problem - WP:V is also an issue, particularly if we are talking about restoring the dozens of articles that were deleted which had no sourcing at all! FOARP (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Agreed. Regarding WP:V though, for most airlines this policy is easily addressed by finding a route map or destination list, whether from the airline itself or from some aggregator like FlightMapper.net, FlightConnections.com, or Flightradar24, and citing it for all the current destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Not disagreeing, there referencing of the articles I've checked were beyond terrible and am of the opinion Wikipedia shouldn't include such articles. My point was that a new RFC could settle the matter, as no-one could say their weren't aware of this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Comment. I want to more explicitly point out that keep !voters failed to demonstrate that sufficient coverage in secondary sources exists for any of these lists to meet our policy requiring articles be based on secondary sources. None of the keep !votes even acknowledged this point. As this policy was brought up, and as the deletion guideline(*) requires closers to personally assess whether the article complies with policy, for this to be closed as anything besides "delete" it should have been necessary for a keep !vote to address why it is not very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. But we didn't have a single editor put forth the sources for a single list that showed it could be based on secondary sources (let alone the requisite secondary independent sources of significant coverage on the topic as prescribed by GNG and interpreted by NCORP). (*)Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) "A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies." (emphasis added) - the close clearly violates the WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, since these articles are constructed out of original research using individual announcements from the company concerned (so not independent reliable sources) about future events (so also a WP:V fail). As such this RFC should be reopened or re-run to enable further discussion of this issue, or overturned to delete. Ping @Thryduulf, Frank Anchor, OwenX, Jclemens, CHCBOY, Coastie43, Stifle, Robert McClenon, SiniyaEdita, Sunnya343, and ActivelyDisinterested: - the discussion was treated by keep !voters, and I think in the above endorse !votes, as if the discussion were simply a referendum on personal opinions about whether this kind of article were (absent any discussion of notability/sourcing) something Wikipedia should host, but this was not the only issue at play in this AFD. Do you have any further comments on this? FOARP (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC) User:FOARP - Is there a reason why you are pinging eleven participants, or is this simply a way of bludgeoning the DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Can you explain how this could possibly be bludgeoning? It is entirely reasonable to ping the previous participants of the discussion to see if they change their minds based on a new point not yet considered. FOARP (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) User:FOARP, User:JoelleJay - Are you saying that the closer, as a single administrator, should have determined that the articles violated content policies, and therefore should have closed the discussion as Delete? If that is what you are saying, then what is the purpose of community involvement in the AFD? Why not have the closer decide on their own? If you are saying that the closer should disregard the lack of a consensus and close as Delete, then should we instead have a speedy deletion criterion for Violates Core Content Policies? Maybe there is something that I don't understand, but your arguments seem to be saying that the participation of the community is unnecessary, because the closer should decide. Maybe there is something that I don't understand, or maybe you haven't taken your argument to its logical conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) I don't think continued discussion here is helpful. Let this close and then move on to the next step. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Do you not think it's relevant that the pages objectively fail policy and that this should have been considered by the closer? Why can't the next step be to overturn or relist? JoelleJay (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) I think that even if this AfD is overturned and these articles deleted that it will solve the whole situation. The next AfD or the next article created will see the same editors making the same arguments. Having a new RFC that no-one can claim they didn't know about will both deal with these articles and any future issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) An AFD can only be about the articles nominated - entirely new articles are always going to be outside the scope of the discussion anyway. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The determination of whether an article "fails policy" is not determined by someone declaring it to be "objectively" so. It is determined by consensus. The consensus is that this article does not fail. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Keep editors didn't even address the issue with primary sourcing, which is objectively an issue with all of the articles. I don't see how there could be a consensus that an article based almost entirely on announcements on the airline's own website complies with our policy on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) WP:V means verifiable, not verifed. It's perfectly acceptable for an administrator--or any editor with common sense, really--to note that even without citations, anyone can look up, say, whether Airline A flies between cities B and C, and that any such supposed connection proven false can be excised from any such list article without the entirety needing to be deleted. If you're going to present arguments allegedly based on policies... then please begin with an understanding of what the policies do and do not say. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Verification does not guarantee inclusion, instead included content must be verifiable. Most of the arguments about these articles are not related to V, but to WP:NOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Most of the arguments about these articles are not related to V, but to WP:NOT. Exactly. As someone who used to edit this content regularly and has reviewed past discussions going back to 2007, I think Delete arguments based on the following policies are unlikely to be effective: WP:V – The information is easily verifiable in flight-schedule databases. WP:PRIMARY – This argument makes sense for stand-alone lists, as WP:GNG comes into play. But what if the list is merged into the parent article on the airline? Now it's just one section of another article, and primary sources are acceptable for basic facts. WP:CORP – WP:N has no impact on lists embedded within the parent articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The WP:CORP point misses the fact that these are stand-alone articles that need to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, not lists in larger articles. WP:V is not passed when the source is not reliable, nor when what is said is WP:OR. I think the overwhelming majority, and possibly all, of these articles fail on these grounds alone before we even discuss WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC) The WP:CORP point misses the fact that these are stand-alone articles that need to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, not lists in larger articles. True. It would be beneficial to point out that the only reason some of these lists became stand-alone articles is that they were too long, with no consideration of AVOIDSPLIT. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) @FOARP: The only way I can read a consensus for delete from the discussion is to treat all the delete !votes as policy-based and/or all the keep !votes as non-policy-based. There were arguments of both types on both sides, and neither side's arguments were sufficiently stronger or more convincing than the others. No consensus was the correct outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Perhaps we should rerun the RfC in the manner OwenX described. That is, notifying all interested parties and tagging all stand-alone lists with a link to the RfC. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested as well: "My point was that a new RFC could settle the matter, as no-one could say their weren't aware of this one". I explained in another comment why I think the current strategy of having one AfD after another doesn't make sense. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC) modified 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I've removed the bolding from the first three words of this comment, the nominator does not get to make multiple bolded recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) If the outcome of a future RfC-cum-AfD were that this type of content is acceptable for Wikipedia, I would not support a retrospective overturning of all the prior AfDs. Yes, some were based exclusively on the 2018 RfC (e.g. Wow Air), but others went beyond it as I mentioned elsewhere. The standard protocol for appealing controversial deletions, DRV, should be followed. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse (reluctantly, having !voted to delete). While many of the keep !votes were little more than lamentations about the WP:EFFORT that went into creating the pages, there were enough remaining policy-based keep arguments to justify the closer's assessment of no consensus. There are two ways forward from here: either we continue the existing path of putting these pages up for deletion in smaller bundles over the coming months, or we hold a new RfC. In an ideal world I'd say that a new RfC would be far more satisfactory, but in practice I have my doubts that it would reach consensus clear enough to be implemented en masse. There's little point in agreeing on a broad principle if the decision then needs to be relitigated in multiple AFDs. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) "we continue the existing path of putting these pages up for deletion in smaller bundles over the coming months, or we hold a new RfC" - I'm of a similar viewpoint about what happens if an RFC is held. I think the most likely result of a new RFC will be endorsing the old one, but voters at AFD will not see themselves as bound at all by the outcome of it, nor will closers give it much weight. Smaller bundles honestly sounds like a better plan as it would mean more attention is paid to the universally lamentable state of the notability and sourcing of these articles. FOARP (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Smaller bundles honestly sounds like a better plan Now I'm considering this approach again. Jetstreamer noted in the AfD how frustrating it is to discuss the matter over and over again. But the issue is that any proposal to delete content en masse, especially lists like these that so many editors value, is going to run into difficulties. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) My earlier comment was meant to express that any new RFC should act as a de facto AfD for all these articles (policy should be updated to reflect the outcome). Having another RFC and then having more endless AfDs is just a timesink. Notify everyone and every effected article, get a clear picture of what the community opinion is and implement it all in one go. There's already precedence for using this method to stop these endless back and forths. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC) I know I keep flip-flopping on this: but yes, the endless AfDs are a timesink! ActivelyDisinterested, I don't understand what you mean by "policy should be updated to reflect the outcome" though. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Make it an example in NOT of what should / shouldn't (dependent on outcome of the RFC) have an article. So that it can't be argued about in the future. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Frankly had Beeblebrox done that in 2018 after the RFC none of the rest of this would have happened. Not criticising Beebs, just saying. Getting any amendment of WP:NOT to pass at this point is mission impossible - you'll be monstered just for trying - and unnecessary because it already explicitly excludes lists of "products and services" which these articles manifestly are so the whole RFC idea at this point just feels pointless. I'd rather just AFD these articles on WP:V/WP:CORP grounds one by one or in small groups. What I don't understand is why a no-consensus vote is being treated as cancelling an RFC. FOARP (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC) A benefit of an RfC-cum-AfD, though, would be that unlike an AfD it can also cover the lists embedded within airline articles, e.g. airBaltic § Destinations. Also, I'm sorry to keep bringing up the related lists in airport articles, but those for example can never be addressed by this "convenient" one-by-one AfD process. If all the lists of airline destinations were in a compact form like in Heathrow Airport § Airlines and destinations (which could certainly be done for the current destinations at least, as they could all be cited to the airline's flight schedule) and were contained within the parent articles, an RfC seems like it would be the only way to address them... If we believe that there's no fundamental difference between any of the lists, we should really just proceed to such an RfC instead of having another 20 AfDs. And in this new RfC, there would be no discussion of the 2018 one; we would just focus on the arguments. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC) modified 20:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse (voted procedural keep) Liz made an excellent close in a contentious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse. I agree with the arguments by Thryduulf and Stifle. The forum to discuss deletion of articles is AFD, and a six-year old RFC cannot override that. The comments provided by Liz in the closure are an exemplary example of how contentious discussions should be handled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

David Windsor – Procedural close: requestor was evading a block. (For the record, the deleted version seems to have been about someone different.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David Windsor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The main reason for deletion is that the guy is not on IMDb, but the person is on IMDb https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1427947/ and other places https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/david_windsor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Dead_Yet_(TV_series) - https://www.emmys.com/bios/david-windsor - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Windsor&redirect=no - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Windsor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listedwhenyou (talk • contribs) Endorse but allow draftification. All the sources provided by the appellant are from the last eight years, which suggests that 18 years ago, when the AfD was closed, the subject was indeed not notable. Either way, their inclusion in IMDb is irrelevant. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Note: I've blocked Listedwhenyou as yet another sock of User:Khalafvand. Favonian (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mortal Online 2 – Deleting admin (me) has reversed the decision and sending to AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mortal Online 2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There is a page about Mortal Online which released on June 9, 2010. A sequel called Mortal Online 2 was released on 25 January 2022. However, the page was deleted by Stifle at 09:29, 3 April 2024. He gave the reason "No credible indication of importance", but the Mortal Online MMOs are significant. Mortal Online 2 is available on Steam and Epic Games Store. It's actively played by thousands of people. It is continuously being developed. Major roadmap milestones were achieved and are planned. Stifle deleted the page without a discussion. The developer StarVault was awarded a $1 million Epic MegaGrant which is only given to MMOs that are important enough. Mortal Online 2 is also one of the first MMOs to use Unreal Engine 5. -Artanisen (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. Notable or not, CSD:A7 specifically excludes products and software. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Endorse own deletion, non-notable web content. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn being the sequel to a notable product is a claim of significance, and merging the information to the article about the original is an obvious alternative to deletion that is preferred over deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn - being "online" doesn't specifically make it "web-content". As it is sold/distributed via multiple distribution platforms, it fits better in the product/software category, and as such, A7 isn't applicable, - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. It isn't "web content" as in a website, web app or similar but something that runs on computer hardware, a multiplayer game (running on Unreal Engine 5 per the company, and this is how it is installed). It's a piece of software that connects to the internet. —Alalch E. 14:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn Had to sleuth for this one. I'm overturning based on: Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline. I then looked at the topic, which appears to be played as a stand-alone game not through a web browser, and is therefore ineligible for A7. Not the most straightforward case, though. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn mis-application of A7, which specifically excludes products and software. Frank Anchor 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn, allowing it to be sent to AFD. There are two issues, whether the subject of the article was a valid A7, and whether there was a credible claim of significance. A credible claim of significance has been asserted, but we don't need to decide it. The subject was a software product, and they are not subject to A7. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC) In light of the views expressed I will reverse my decision and undelete. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

31 March 2024

Brooke Monk – No action; feel free to continue working on the draft. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brooke Monk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleted for non-notability, but I just did a search and found several sources, such as Elite Daily, CelebWell, CNBC, Variety. She is also listed in Forbes Top Creators 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannaultheal (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) No action (and close). Whoever is pretty sure that the subject is now notable can recreate the article. Whoever is not sure can pursue AfC (see Draft:Brooke Monk). There is no need to comment on the permissibility of recreation, the close wasn't challenged so there is no need to endorse, and a refund was not requested so there's no need to comment on undeleting, but being able to see what the page looked like via the Wayback Machine, I am noting that the deleted content was bad, and there are no sources worth extracting.—Alalch E. 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Just go ahead and recreate - No issues. TLAtlak 16:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse if this is a challenge to the original close, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Allow Recreation or submission of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Comment - The current draft is not ready for review. It will probably be declined, but might be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Deletion review not required to create a new article that overcomes the reasons the previous one was deleted. Stifle (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Various dates – Deletions overturned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
April 4, 1968 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) September 26, 1963 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) June 7, 2000 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The first two of these survived RfD and then were deleted out of process by an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV. The third was never previously discussed but the fact that the first two survived means its not uncontroversial. These deletions need to be undone. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV". How long? And is it relevant to this particular deletion? What exactly are you trying to say? Deb (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn out-of-process deletions. All three deletion are out-of-process deletions (G6 is inscribed in the log, but G6 doesn't have anything to do with these deletions), but the first two are especially actively contrary to process as they were subjects of very nice RfDs that thoughtfully dealt with those two redirects.—Alalch E. 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn as out-of-process deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Okay, well, to save anyone else having to go delving to work out what this is about: April 4, 1968 is American for 4 April 1968, on which date Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated. The RfD is here. September 26, 1963 is American for 26 September 1963, on which date not much of any great import happened. The RfD is here. June 7, 2000 is American for 7th June 2000, on which date not much of any great import happened. There's no RfD to review. The criteria for G6 are here in case anyone wants to review them. Deletion review interprets the criteria for speedy deletion narrowly and restores if there's doubt. In my view these don't meet the strict criteria for G6.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn and a question that I should probably know the answer to: Do we notate MfD results anywhere in a redirect's talk page? I can't imagine Deb would actively have controverted two recent, reasonably well attended MfD discussions on purpose. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC) RFD, not MFD, and yes but not consistently. The 1963 redir was so noted, the 1968 wasn't. Not that that makes the 1968 deletion any less careless: the RFD was clearly visible in the history - there were only eight revisions - and the speedy tag ("Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo") was so inapplicable that I'd not just have declined, not just have marked the declination as "refuse" as I occasionally do to indicate that I'll bring it here if another admin goes ahead and deletes it anyway, I'd have rolled it back for being indistinguishable from vandalism. —Cryptic 08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry, yes, RfD. Thanks for the clarification despite my error. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Speedy overturn. G6 speedy deletions have to be uncontroversial, and the fact they are listed here makes it clear that they are not. Stifle (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I notified the editor who tagged these redirects for speedy deletion that this discussion was occurring. Although the discussion is focused on the deletion of these pages, I think there is useful information for them to read over. Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. Not even close to being a correct application of speedy deletion. Either the admin needs to reread Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion or they need to hand in their bits. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)  Comment: I nominated these redirects for deletion as two out of them, if I recall well, were created (and the third one edited) by a user sanctioned for creating oodles useless redirects (GabrielPenn4223 – see User talk). I admit I didn't check the nomination history, however I did check neighbouring dates and they did not exist, so speedy'ing these articles seemed a no-brainer. I still believe they are useless and they needlessly clutter the search box, and will be eventually deleted, but since Wikipedia is increasingly turning into a bureaucracy, I understand why some editors feel compelled to use their infinite free time and follow the recommended procedures to the dot. Note that I did not nominate the articles under G6 but under a custom rationale providing a detailed explanation; no idea why G6 was relied on, however those who have argued for an overturn based on the narrow scope of G6 might like to revisit the matter. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Your custom rationale for speedy deletion "Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo. Note that we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations, and it wasn't said why we should make an exception for 26 September 1963, 4 April 1968 and 7 July 2000". does not relate to any valid speedy deletion criterion either. It's closest to R3, but that applies only to recently created redirects - these were created over three years prior to your nomination. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when all revisions of a page are eligible for that criteria, so you should check the page history and talk page before nominating (and the reviewing administrator must check before deletion). Remember also that the speedy deletion criteria, interpreted narrowly, are the only situations in which an administrator is authorised to delete a page without discussion, if a page you think should be deleted doesn't meet one or more criteria then prod (if applicable) or XfD are your only options. In this case your nomination was also factually inaccurate for the first two as the RfDs did say why exceptions should be made for those dates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC) I see the point being raised by those wishing to discuss these three redirects in detail. Please feel free to restore them, then renominate for deletion in due procedure. They will likely end up deleted anyway, as they are useless, just it will take several hours combined of people typing on Wikipedia, rather with little productivity. I get it that that's how bureaucracy looks like, and you'll have to excuse me I'm passing on that. — kashmīrī TALK 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) The consensus of the previous discussion was that they were not useless, which is why we do not let individual editors/admins speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases. If not deleting pages that consensus says should not be deleted sounds like bureaucracy to you, then please consider finding something else to do on Wikipedia than interacting with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC) April 4, 1968 was not created by that user, and Facts707 would no doubt be surprised to find that they're "now-indeffed" and that the redirects they've created are "now largely deleted". It should - but apparently doesn't - go without saying that it wasn't "created... from an implausible typo" either, since it's not a typo at all. About the only words in your deletion rationale that I can pick out as accurate are "Another one of many... redirects". —Cryptic 04:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC) To be fair we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations is accurate too, however as we don't delete all of them either it's not relevant to whether these redirects should be deleted (speedily or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 March 2024

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real – Deleting admin has restored the article and opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (2nd nomination) rendering this moot. Star Mississippi 03:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This was kept at MfD. Two years later an admin deleted it, asserting based on their own original research that it was not in fact a hoax. This is procedurally inappropriate as admins do not have the authority to unilaterally overrule deletion discussions and the page should be restored. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)  Note: MFD, AN discussion leading to the deletion Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Sigh. And than AN discussion was also a topic ban violation (admittedly of a topic ban I've never been convinced was justified) * Pppery * it has begun... 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn out-of-process deletion which is the most similar to a G6 but which circumvents the last deletion discussion which pertains to the page. The edit history of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia in 2022 shows that there was significant disagreement about this and editors were removing and readding the entry, finally removed in this edit (see the earlier one for an actual rationale: diff). Whether this is a certifiable hoax or not can be decided in a new MfD. As an archived hoax page, it is a traditional and legitimate projectspace item, and needs to be discussed accordingly. If editors in the MfD can not agree that it is a hoax, and some substantively argue in good faith that is not a hoax, and it looks like 'no consensus' could be the outcome, the page should be deleted by default instead of kept. If editors roughly agree that it is a hoax after all, MfD should result in keeping.—Alalch E. 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC) In other words, when such pages are discussed in MfD, the burden of deleting is on the nominator who must shake up the certainty of the page being a hoax. If multiple editors participating in that process (not commenting or edit warring somewhere else) no longer think that it's hoax, there should not have to be a consensus that the page is not a hoax, but a lack of consensus that it is a hoax should cause the page to no longer be seen as a suitable hoax example that we want to use as a point-of-reference-for-a-hoax. But the arguments need to be made in the appropriate forum where they can be appropriately seen and countered. —Alalch E. 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks Pppery for notifying me of this discussion -- I'm the admin who deleted the page. It was deleted following a request on the Administrator's Noticeboard to delete the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page because it was no longer listed on LOHOW. I reviewed a discussion on the LOHOW talk page that showed the individual's actual name and other data as written in the article was not a hoax. (The person's real name, dates and places of both birth and death are available for anyone to see on the SSA index and database.) In fact, the unsourced original Ruda Real page could have been considered a WP:BLP violation from the start and speedy deleted as a WP:G10 attack page when it was created or subsequently thereafter. Additionally, it should have remained deleted following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruda Real per Wikipedia policy on biographies. We must always exercise care when dealing with non-notable bios. Note that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" on biographies of non-notable persons -- this includes their living family members. Note also "the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Wikipedia's policy about being very cautious when creating possibly disparaging pages about real persons outweighs any desire to keep articles for curiosity sake. I concede that it was an error on my part not to have explained my reasoning on the LOHOW talk page. I'm sorry about that. But "unsourced contentious material... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". The article should remain deleted. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC) It can stay blanked while it is discussed in a new MfD. —Alalch E. 00:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. I wouldn't really have a problem with this under normal circumstances, but the fact that the page was kept at MfD after the supposed evidence of non-hoaxiness emerged in February 2022 means this needs to go back to MfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn grossly out-of-process deletion. Deletion discussion was not on correct forum. Deleting admin unilaterally deleted this page with no WP:QUORUM and cited a 2021 AFD as justification for deleting. However, there was consensus to keep in a more recent MFD. This can be sent back to MFD after the subject page is fully restored. Frank Anchor 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. Was kept at MFD, therefore this deletion was clearly improper. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn: Admins don't have the power to overrule MFD. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Comment: Given the clear consensus that my deletion was out-of-process, I have restored the page and opened a new MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (2nd nomination). — CactusWriter (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2024

Sean Catherine Derek – AfD overturned and article restored to draft space * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sean Catherine Derek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Ms. Derek is an Emmy winner (and three-time nominee) [3] as well as a published author. She received significant press coverage around the time her memoir came out. [4] Her screenwriting filmography is extensive. I don't think this page should've been deleted when there are far less notable people with Wikipedia entries. Yours6700 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Restore to draft. The appellant hasn't provided any valid reason to overturn or relist. However, seeing as there were only two participants at the AfD, WP:QUORUM was not met, and this should be treated as a soft deletion, so the page qualifies for instant REFUND. That said, even though the AfD was seven years ago, I still prefer to see it go through AfC, seeing as current sourcing is weak. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Don’t Endorse, due to tainted nominator and lack of quorum. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC). Endorse the AfD, old as it is. Restore to draftspace, where the appellant will have to learn about collecting quality sources and building encyclopedic content. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) I recommend “restore to draftspace”, not having seen the article, so that it can be checked before returning to mainspace. No objection to overturning the AfD as tainted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn to soft delete per OwenX as WP:QUORUM was not met. Article must be restored upon any reasonable request, such as this DRV. If it was not eligible for soft delete (e.g. if previously PRODed), then overturn to no consensus as QUORUM was still not met. Either way, I agree with OwenX that this should be restored to draftspace to allow interested editors to work on it first, as the sources are weak. Frank Anchor 16:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Semi-Overturn the AFD to a Soft Delete, as per OwenX. (In retrospect, there is now only one Delete, because the nominator is a blockedbanned sockpuppeteer.) There was no mention in the AFD of the Emmy, which meets biographical notability as a major award, or of the 1982 newspaper article, which is significant coverage. So the appellant should be able to develop a good draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Comment - User:SmokeyJoe - I think that the appellant does know about sources. They have found two sources that will establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) I was unimpressed by the IMDb link. IMDb is never a reliable source. The second link looks ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC) True about the IMDB. A link to the Emmy site, or to a newspaper reporting the Emmy, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Dug this up, looks good. TLAtlak 14:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) No, we've got to overturn this. As SmokeyJoe Robert McClenon sorry Robert correctly points out, and there was no way for Kurykh to know this at the time, the nominator at that AfD isn't a good faith Wikipedian, but serial sockpuppetteer User:Rms125a@hotmail.com using an obfuscated signature. The community banned him two years after that AfD but he was already showing the behaviours that got him banned in 2017. And the first boldface "delete" was the nominator. That leaves Beemer69's !vote, and although there's every indication that Beemer69 is a responsible, good faith Wikipedian, we wouldn't let a deletion stand on her !vote alone. I'm at overturn and restore as an irretrievably tainted AfD, with no prejudice against renomination by someone else.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn per S Marshall but undelete to draft because, this being a BLP, and as I was able to determine via web.archive.org, there are no references, there's only an IMDb link, and the content might be outdated. The nominator in this DRV who is apparently interested in this article can do the minimum required work (or anyone else can) to ensure article space suitability.—Alalch E. 13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Overturn - think this should be undeleted to draft, though, per the sourcing and BLP concerns raised above. SportingFlyer T·C 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of American Airlines destinations – Procedurally closed as redundant to the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 28. Sandstein 07:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of American Airlines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was needlessly taken down due to a consesus being reached entirely composed of incredibly foolish & self contradictory logic. The very weak reasoning was that this would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, then the grand majority of information found on Wikipedia must also be removed, as that information is also constantly changing & its respective pages require heavy maintenance & consistent alteration to allow that information to be as accurate & up to date as possible. This list was factual information, an encyclopedia is where 1 is supposed to find factual information. Its suppression & removal from the encyclopedia is incredibly counterintuitive & calls to question the legitimacy of this platform, as all the information that should be easily accessible here is now for whatever reason doubted as having a place in an encyclopedia. The 2018 RfC should also not be invoked as reasoning to supress these articles, as that too was plagued with falsehoods & very weak & ill-informed rationale. This list was never in any violation of any Wikipedia guideline & should instantly be fully reinstated permanently immediately without question. Its suppression calls to question Wikipedia's legitimacy as an encyclopedia where information of all sorts is supposed to be easily accessible. That some readers may find this information irrelevant is not a reason to suppress this information, nor deprive other readers of this information who may find it useful for a variety of purposes. Readers who belive this is irrelevent to them should simply disregard it, but not call for its needless removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a (talk • contribs) Procedural Close to Merge with List of American Airlines destinations - The two articles were covered by the same AFD, and should be covered by the same DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Procedural close I think there's a chance this isn't "ripe" yet depending on how consensus breaks elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Procedural Close and merge into Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_March_28#List_of_United_Airlines_destinations, both were in the same AFD and both should be in the same DRV. Coastie43 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 March 2024

List of United Airlines destinations – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of United Airlines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There was not enough time to allow for more reasoning to be voiced in support of keeping this information up. The arguments in favor of deletion were plagued entirely with pure falsehoods, such as false claims that this list was in violation of various Wikipedia guidelines, & falsely claimed that this information requiring maintenance establishes Wikipedia as a newsfeed. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia meant to house a variety of information, & airline destinations, former, current & planned, should be among the pieces of that should have a permanent home here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, because I can see you care a lot about this, but there's been plenty of time for discussion. We talked about airline destinations in general, in a central place, for 23 days here and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. Then we talked about the United Airlines destinations specifically, in the discussion you're complaining about, for seven days which is the full amount of time allotted for deletion discussions, and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. I'm afraid the situation is that we've heard these arguments that you raise, and we disagree. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Just for clarity, it was you who took them down & it's you who has the power to reinstate them? 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) That readers don't want this information is not reason enough to deprive other readers of this information who may find this information to be valuable or of other legitimate purpose that others may simply not see. To readers who don't want to see it, they should just simply disregard it but leave it be for other readers who look for this information, for whatever reason it may serve valuable to them. This list must be reinstated, along with the other 2 also needlessly suppressed. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Comment: WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL are not very strong arguments for retention/overturning of an article deletion discussion. Coastie43 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Even if that were true, there was far worse logic applied to the arguments favoring deletion. Because of those very weak reasons, this information is no longer anywhere on the internet. Where else would it be easily accessible if not for an encyclopedia? It's become extinct thanks to the foolish reasoning applied to its deletion & until its reinstatement, it will remain extinct on the internet needlessly. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Like it or not, the community has spoken clearly about these lists. Owen× ☎ 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse per consensus. Many of the destinations lists (up to 260+ lists), listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/AfD_record had clearly stated arguments for deletion that was agreed by the community. Coastie43 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC) I think the community's decision is wrong. I think the information is useful, encyclopedic, relevant, and easy to maintain, that this overcomes the negatives of it being "a lot of information", and that it is far more encyclopedic than swathes of articles about baseball leagues (for example). But the community has come to a consensus, at the requests for comment and at this AFD. Accordingly, User:Explicit was required to close the AFD as delete. I am saddened by this, because I think it's a net negative for the encyclopedia. But since it's in line with the community's decisions, I must, with the greatest reluctance, endorse the closure. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Comment - Not another airline destination case! See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive359#Closure_review_request_for_the_RfC_on_the_"Airlines_and_destinations"_tables_in_airport_articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) This AfD was on lists of the destinations of individual airlines (e.g. List of British Airways destinations), not the lists of airlines and destinations found in articles about airports (e.g. John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations). Sunnya343 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse as per User:OwenX and as per User:Stifle - The community has made it clear that a rough consensus considers these airline destination lists to be non-encyclopedic. As with Stifle, I am not sure whether I agree, but it is better to let the majority rule than to continue to fight over airline destination tables that a majority of editors think are indiscriminate information and so violate Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here, that's for information better suited to travel guides, and no travel guide would include this information. A specialty text might have before the internet. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) There's another AfD going on at the moment which I'm admittedly involved in which is at the very least challenging the result reached at the now six year old RfC, which honestly wasn't very well attended for something that would create policy saying an entire swath of articles should be deleted. While I agree the closer reached a correct decision for this particular AfD, depending on the result of the active AfD, I'd be more than willing to draftify these articles. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse as the AfD nominator. The outcome was rooted in Wikipedia policy and a consensus that had arisen over multiple discussions, including over 20 prior AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Comment I just thought I'd mention another AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, involving over 150+ similar articles. I think however it is closed, it will probably find its way to Deletion Review as opinion is very divided, demonstrating that not every editor who is interested in this subject was aware or participated in that RFC. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse essentially per the above. I am not at all certain this is the best choice overall, but there was certainly a consensus to delete present in the challenged discussion. Note that this discussion should probably apply to all three articles considered in this AfD, and as Liz notes above should probably also reflect the more well attended AfD currently ongoing. That is, an endorse here based on this AfD should not be interpreted as argument that these article should not be allowed if con consensus for their deletion is later found to exist. (I hope that makes sense). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Wikipedia consistency does not want to be a tour guide resource. That is not an encyclopedia. A list like this needs to be timeless, not tied to now. If the list is not covering the history of these destinations being serviced, then it gets deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse. There was consensus to delete after a normal discussion period. Everything was done correctly and there is no significant new information (a new RfC with a different outcome might've been that information).—Alalch E. 23:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Endorse, largely per Stifle. I agree this is useful information, but the community has determined - not absurdly - that it does not fit Wikipedia policies. To me, one of the huge successes of Wikipedia is not only the encyclopedia that is being built, but a vivid demonstration that the Wiki collaborative model works. To me, this is a perfect example of material that could be very usefully maintained using the Wiki model somewhere, just with different specific policies. Martinp (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.