Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adria Airways destinations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:32, 2 February 2018

Adria Airways destinations

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

Per the result of this discussion, which closed with consensus that Wikipedia should not have airline destination lists, I am nominating 22 lists of airline destinations for deletion. These particular articles are bundled together as members of Star Alliance.

Here is a subsequent discussion that closed with consensus to bundle and AfD articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. AdA&D 03:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pages in this AfD:

Delete all per community consensus, we are not a travel guide. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And they were deleted by that 16-17 people consensus and later all restored by more thorough and stronger Consensus at AN which you didn't mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to find what airline went where then I would book a travel agent rather than try to find it on Wikipedia. This isn't encyclopedic but can help travelers find which is the best airline to take via Wikivoyage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I already raised this point at the Village Pump and was soundly in the minority, I feel that these pages provide useful encyclopedic information about the "reach" of each airline that would be less useful if reduced to a vague summary. Moreover, I feel that WP:NOTTRAVEL is not really relevant, since these lists are pretty useless as travel guides since they do not indicate routes that are flown. I am not sure of the exact guidelines for "implementing" a consensus at VP, so to the extent that that consensus is binding, I accept and respect the consensus from VP. However, I feel that since that discussion was not tagged on any of the concerned pages, it is worth soliciting opinions from those who may watch these pages but do not follow VP discussions, and thus that it is valid to have a full discussion here. If the usual practice here is to simply accept the result of Village Pump discussions, then I apologize for attempting to rehash the argument. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:INKLESS. -- Acefitt 03:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a travel guide. Next thing we will be having take off times Gbawden (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Aside from the fact that this kind of content is outside the scope of an encyclopedia, the individual articles are not that well sourced and prone to be out of date since airline routes change frequently. This stuff is of minimal utility since it's not the kind of thing people come to an encyclopedia for, and has an unacceptably high probability of being incorrect at any given time. Reyk _YO! 08:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Air Canada destinations is a valid child article of the Destinations section of Air Canada. Just saying "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" is irrelevant since they aren't trying to be. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per community consensus and WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In every case there is an obvious alternative to deletion – merger into the main page about the airline, which should obviously say something about each airline's network and coverage. This alternative is preferred, per our deletion policy WP:BEFORE, and so we shouldn't even be having this discussion. The airlines in this bundle are mostly quite major and so there is extensive literature about the development and nature of their networks; works such as Airline Network Development in Europe and its Implications for Airport Planning. The route networks of these airlines are therefore notable and so any deficiencies are just a matter of ordinary editing. Our editing policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply. Andrew D. (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Village Pump discussion and the comments of Ajf773 and Reyk above. Merging is out of the question as well - in many cases these child lists were hived off the main articles because they became so large, and if the information does not belong on WP in stand-alone lists why would we shovel it back into the parent article anyway? Yes, the articles "should obviously say something about each airline's network and coverage", but all we need is a sentence or two stating the airline flies to x number of destinations in y number of countries. The "deficiencies [that] are just a matter of ordinary editing" exist because people aren't going to the effort of doing that ordinary editing - these lists are more examples of WP being unreliable through becoming outdated because of inattention. YSSYguy (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statements are in clear contradiction with what you did here [1].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per consensus at Village Pump, citing WP:NOTDIR. There's nothing to stop any main article referring to broad destinations of an airline service - or indeed unusual ones - (which must constantly change over the years), and citing a url to where that information can be found. If it can't be found, then these lists are just WP:OR. And I say this as someone who generally dislikes seeing content deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The way I see things, WP:NOTRAVEL involves detailed information regarding each destination, not mentioning them in a list. Furthermore, some of the articles has an introductory section regarding the history of the destinations, and this is certainly encyclopedic.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: it is not difficul to find "List of..." articles in Wikipedia (This is just an example). Are you going to AfD them all by invoking WP:NOTDIR?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- please observe the extremely non-neutral notification here. Reyk _YO! 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I did not encourage people to vote either for Keep or for Delete.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Tons of information related to airline destinations are in risk of being wiped out" is about as blatant as you can get. If I were to go to some noticeboard to say "Tons of clutter regarding airline destinations is in risk of being retained" I'd get yelled at for canvassing, and rightly so. Reyk _YO! 13:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonsense. It's obviously appropriate for the airlines project to be notified. The notice seems reasonably accurate because hundreds of substantial articles are indeed at risk of being wiped out. Jetstreamer's language is quite restrained in the circumstances. Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already notified the airlines project by posting a bald statement on the relevant Talk page. Jetstreamer's comment was utterly unnecessary and was far from bald. YSSYguy (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justified or not, that notification was not the slightest bit neutral. Let's not pretend it was. Lepricavark (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the closer will take that into account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to hyper-analyze the language of notifications to appropriate stakeholders, let me point out that the RfC listing for the Village Pump discussion was "These 444 pages are lists of every single city each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of Wikipedia is not a directory?" (emphasis from original). Hardly bald either. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These lists seem of more encyclopedic value than the lists on airport pages in that they keep historical destinations served in addition to current. Based on this I'd like to see them stick around. Garretka (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete; redirect and keep the history for partial merges where appropriate. I don't personally agree with the result of the RfC but I will accept that the close was a reasonable reading of the discussion, and never mind that I didn't know about the RfC until after it was closed. What I don't see, however, is that this conclusion necessarily demands the obliteration of all this content and sourcing information forever from the view of editors who might make legitimate encyclopedic use of the content. I expect that this issue is likely to come up most forcefully in articles about historic airlines (look for example at the content and footnotes at Braniff International Airways destinations or Pan Am destinations), but in all cases, information about evolution of route structure is essential to a full understanding of what happened to the airline. Note on many of these lists the reference to substantive sources mixed in with other more list-like sources. Should Wikipedia airline articles include long bald lists of every airport served? Perhaps not, if we believe the RfC. But should the articles refer to and describe the origination and changes in route structure? Absolutely. Can this content help? In some cases, possibly. Is there some compelling BLP-like reason it should be removed from edit history nonetheless? Not that I can see. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this AfD is being run as a test case or if we will be doing this many more times on a case-by-case basis; anyway Pan Am destinations has been mentioned above so I will discuss that. I agree that "information about evolution of route structure is essential to a full understanding of what happened to the airline", but there is nothing in the Pan Am destinations list that aids understanding of what happened to Pan American World Airways. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am operated to some of its Central- and South American destinations for six decades. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am operated an extensive West German domestic network because only one airline each of France, the UK, the US and the USSR could operate to Berlin. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Gander in Canada and Shannon in Ireland were purely refuelling stops for Transatlantic flights and were dropped once aircraft improved to the point that they could fly nonstop. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am got into financial trouble partly because (apart from serving Hawaii and Alaska) it was a purely international airline and was competing with domestic airlines that started flying internationally and which had all those domestic passengers to whom they could offer a seamless service. There is nothing in that list that tells me that a lot of routes were dropped in the 1970s to save money. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am sold all of its Pacific Ocean routes to another airline in order to raise money. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am finally began US domestic operations when it was allowed to take over another carrier. There is nothing in that list that tells me that Pan Am sold its London Heathrow routes to raise more money. All of this information is in the parent article. The list (any list) does not convey any useful information about the evolution of Pan Am's (or any other airline's) route structure - all there is, is a list of names; there is no context to any of it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why the parent article exists! Facts without context are bad, but so is context without facts! CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many flights, by themselves, come close to satisfying WP:GNG. For example, UAL 143^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. Since individual flights, for which the details are omitted from the lists of destinations, verge on notable, the lists of destinations should be retained.

References

^ Schilder, Aaron; Keys, Danielle (2012-05-22). "United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flights". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ Booth, Darren (2013-06-10). "Sake Toast: United Starts Denver-Tokyo 787 Flight". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ "Special Report: United Airlines and the quest for a Denver-Tokyo flight". Denver Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-01-30.
^ "成田からの直行便就航一周年！スポーツとビールの街、アメリカコロラド州「デンバー」とは". HuffPost Japan (in Japanese). 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2018-01-31.

BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC) (Edited to add Japanese language source BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In this day and age, it is possible to find news stories about pretty-much everything - house fires, car crashes, a lost cat found (yes, national news in Australia) - so the reporting by Denver news media outlets of a new flight from Denver and a report of airline news by a guy whose job it is to report airline news does not "come close to satisfying WP:GNG", however let's say for the sake of argument that it does. If we take information that isn't notable, but almost is, and we omit the details that make this information "verge on notable" and lump what's left together, somehow it becomes notable? YSSYguy (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:OUTCOMES, it is noted that articles that fail to individually satisfy notability criteria are often merged together to form a single article that will survive AfD. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an addition or cancelation of airline routes which has significant economic impact to the cities/countries served to "lost cat found" stories is disingenuous and not helpful or relevant to this discussion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They make a very useful tool for research on an airlines route network and all on the one page. Not all airline websites have their destinations easy to find. So much historical information will also be lost with them all being deleted forever. Particular info of when a route was started and when one was terminated for instance. CHCBOY (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Airlines' destinations are significant and these articles are verifiable and encyclopedic. The previous discussion on Village Pump is irrelevant as it did not follow standard Wikipedia procedure to reach consensus on article deletion. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 03:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid WP:SPLITLIST of the parent airline articles. Destinations are an integral facet of airlines. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid lists, and could be expanded with reasons for opening/closing to make it even more encyclopedic. Where an airline flies to is a central part of what they are, just like listing what planes they use. I can't see how the lists are useful as travel guides, so I fail to see the point of mentioning WP:NOTTRAVEL. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Each list meets the criteria for a stand alone list, with a clearly definined inclusion criteria on a notable topic. Picking one off the list at random (Air Canada) you easily find coverage of routes in news sources ([2], [3]), which can be used to expand the article. Instead of looking at ways to delete all these lists, the reverse can be applied: There are two Featured Lists (example), so there is the potentinal to have 442 more Featured Lists, instead of 442 deleted articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no real deletion rationale other than one of these spurious hidden discussions that seem to represent 'consensus'. I read it and it seems that these lists are supposed to be deleted for providing "too much information". I seriously question the validity of this, and since the lists are very good, and include some featured lists, I say keep them. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which list is featured of the ones listed for deletion here? I don't see any. AdA&D ★ 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:SPLITLIST from parent pages and for meeting WP:GNG.,(I will expand this). –Ammarpad (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All- as per WP:NOTTRAVEL & WP:NOTCATALOG. This is an encyclopedia, not a website selling plane tickets.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain how an article listing destinations sells tickets?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the consensus obtained at the RfC mentioned in the nomination; "consensus [is that] Wikipedia should not have these lists". Procedurally, the outcome of the linked AN discussion should be followed, and that is indeed done here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CONLIMITED and WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE apply here. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Billhpike. That was project-wide consensus at a properly advertised RfC on VPP. There is hardly a stronger level of consensus imaginable. Also, I don't think it's constructive to suggest that community consensus on this matter has changed in the mere four days that have passed since the RfC was closed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a precedent set I'm unaware of for basing consensus for controversial article deletions on RfCs at the Village Pump? To my knowledge AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of such deletions. "Properly advertised" or not, that discussion didn't attract nearly as much attention and discussion as this one has over a much shorter time. It's not that consensus has changed -- this discussion is more likely to be indicative of a broader consensus than that one. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete all as transient, directory information. Mangoe (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information that an airline has been flying to a certain place is not transient, see also the FL List of Braathens destinations. —Kusma (t·c) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so you found one FL, these can be demoted over time as policies and guidelines change on Wikipedia (that article was promoted in 2010). It is sad yes, but what was once acceptable today can become taboo tomorrow. The good takeaway is that the info in that article can be used to promote another article to FA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is transient the information related to defunct airlines. Honestly, I'd like to see better arguments for deletion votes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - This is a valid list and I don't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL applies as this is not travel advice. And as BillHPike states above, these destinations/flights in themselves frequently pass GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that looking up which airlines took you to x location would be travel advice. These locations also frequently change which shifts the focus of editors to maintaining these articles rather than focus on others that need the attention more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the contributors who took those articles to FL status think, but as an editor who worked hard to bring some articles to GA it is rather frustating to see people that never edited them voting for removing them for good. The spirit of Wikipedia is to improve the current content, not to destroy it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Wikipedia changes... those articles that are "destroyed" are reborn as other FA/GA articles. It was once acceptable for example, to do things that made an article GA or FA class which have since been voted against. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to argue that lists of all destinations of over 400 airlines somehow belongs in an encyclopedia. Airline articles should just state Air ___ has 99 destinations and provide an external link to the airline's official directory. Arguments concerning the featured status of various airline lists do not apply to this AfD, as none of these lists are featured. Further, any arguments related to the quality of these lists fail to address the reason this AfD was started in the first place, which is that these lists, regardless of quality, are out of scope for an encyclopedia. AdA&D ★ 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations served by airlines have significant economic and frequently cultural impact on the locations served, hence so many are themselves receive in-depth coverage with they area added or removed. These aren't just meaningless lists. --Oakshade (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't belong in a general purpose encyclopedia, but they do belong in a specialist one focusing on travel. Wikipedia is actually both. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that proves my point, for example thousands of pages in Category:Sports records and statistics that need frequent updating and are out of place in a general purpose encyclopedia. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: WP:INKLESS. Keep all or merge into the airline articles themselves. One or the other. If we're going to delete these lists, we'd have to delete every other list on WP. These are mostly very well referenced and up to date, and a lot of hard work has gone into making sure that is the case. What is the purpose of removing this information, then? Wikipedia has come a long way since it's inception -- and if it can be a source of greater information why not let it be? WP:NOTTRAVEL certainly does not apply, as it's not even close to being a travel guide. I'm okay with merging them with the actual airline articles themselves (potentially as a collapsible section)...but removing them altogether? Absolutely not. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit much saying "we'd have to delete every other list on WP" if these lists are not kept per WP:OSE and WP:WAX. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and I encourage the eventual closer to keep in mind the community consensus on this matter and keep in mind that after the recent AN thread, this is going to attract more members of the community who care about this topic, but that it cannot replace the community consensus reflected at the village pump RfC. Arguments that fly in the face of that consensus should be disregarded. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it is a bit of a dangerous precedent to have Village Pump discussions be used to delete articles rather than the normal AFD process...my sense is that more people would be attracted here from the AfD notice on the pages themselves than from the AN thread, and the usual way we get consensus to delete things on Wikipedia is to post notice on the things to be deleted themselves, so the part of the community that that attracts should be the one that makes the decision. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is carried out precisely because of the outcome of the original RfC. The result of this should not be tied to that of the original RfC.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for overturning the speedy deletions. Your sense on that is correct. What you are completely wrong on, however, is that local consensus can override a clear community consensus at the village pump or similar forum: it can't. The keep arguments here are ignoring the fact that there is an unambigious community consensus against having these articles, and thus are arguing against policy and should be ignored unless they can bring up specific points that were not addressed in the RfC. Arguing that this local consensus can somehow overturn a positive consensus somewhere else (as opposed to no consensus) is not how we run this project. This is not the RfC round 2. If substantial concerns that were not there can be raised for individual articles, sure, but I don't see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is not permitting the editors that participated in the RfC to voice their opinion here. Again, the RfC was closed and this is a new instance according to the AN closure.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Local consensus cannot override community consensus. If you are intent on relitigating the RfC, your !vote should have zero weight when closed. That's how consensus works. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In closing the RFC, Fish and karate noted that the lists were inappropriate because of excessive detail and maintenance required.

With respect to excessive detail, I would argue that neither WP:NOTDIR nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE are applicable here apply due to the extensive third party coverage of airline destinations (see my comment above). For both of these policies, the principle of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius means that, to the extent these policies are ambiguous, they must be interpreted as indicating a community consensus contrary to the results of the RFC.

With respect to the maintenance required to maintain these lists, this argument is not listed in WP:DEL#REASON. It again follows that there is a community consensus contrary to the results of the RFC.

If the RFC had proposed updating WP:NOT (aka WP:DEL14) or the list at WP:DEL-REASON, I would accept the results of the RFC as community consensus. However, the RFC neither proposed to update these policies nor was closed with a consensus to update these policies, so no new community consensus was established. Instead, the RFC amounted to a local consensus in a improper venue.

(I'll accept trout for WP:WIKILAWYERING) BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billhpike, we are at this AfD because the result of the RfC is community consensus whether you choose to accept it or not. The closing admin is the one to make that call, and in this case they have. If you think the administration acted in error, please follow the instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Besides, not every RfC results in altered wording at some policy. If they did, we would have a huge problem with WP:CREEP and some pretty volatile policies. How policies are implemented is determined by consensus too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBalloni, you keep insisting that "local consensus cannot override community consensus," implying that the Village Pump represents "the community" but AfD is somehow "local." AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of (controversial) article deletions -- as an admin, you are certainly aware of this. This listing has already attracted far more substantial discussion than the one at VP. And your borderline-hostile attitude here (telling a user he is "completely wrong" and his "!vote should have zero weight"; asking another "What are you even talking about?") is unbecoming of an admin. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 06:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Tony, but don’t think he has been hostile. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that the Village Pump discussion is a better representation of "the community" than the discussion here. The normal protocol for article deletion is that a tag is posted on the article and thus people who are watching the article are notified of the discussion. To get consensus in another venue for the deletion of an article, without that tag, strikes me as circumventing the usual channels for getting consensus to delete an article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's being labeled as "community consensus" above is arguably the definition of WP:CONLIMITED. A vast majority of editors including myself rarely pay any attention to the Village Pump let alone know it even exists. Volunteer editors are too busy either creating new articles or improving existing ones. That Village Pump discussion went on for 23 days and there were only 21 editors who gave a definitive "yes" or "no" opinion. This batch AfD has barely been open for 2 days and there's already been 29 definitive opinions on the subject. If that's not evidence of a limited group of users who pay close attention of the "meta" discussions coming to their small group conclusion without wide community input, I don't know what is. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Airline destinations are discussed in numerous reliable sources. The Village Pump is not the place to delete articles. AfD is. That Village Pump discussion should never have even happened there and this should be discussed here on its own merits. Smartyllama (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? Of course the village pump discussion should have happened to create a standard here before going to individual AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is over, this is a new one, and this is the one that will set precedent, mostly considering that a number of destinations articles had been kept before.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That holds little weight per WP:CCC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're implying that the "consensus" reached at VP over this issue is as valid as the one that will eventually be reached here. AfD is the only appropriate venue for discussion of (controversial) article deletions, and this listing has already attracted far more substantial discussion than the one at VP. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 06:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. An airline's reach is notable. Destinations are frequently mentioned in specialized encyclopedic books (Airlines of the World, etc.) It would be nice if more of a narrative format existed. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – The destinations of airlines are WP:Notable, enough to have various sources about them even outside Wikipedia. Leo1pard (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Schilder, Aaron; Keys, Danielle (2012-05-22). "United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flights". The Denver Post. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[2] Booth, Darren (2013-06-10). "Sake Toast: United Starts Denver-Tokyo 787 Flight". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[3] "Special Report: United Airlines and the quest for a Denver-Tokyo flight". Denver Business Journal. Retrieved 2018-01-30.

[4] "成田からの直行便就航一周年！スポーツとビールの街、アメリカコロラド州「デンバー」とは". HuffPost Japan (in Japanese). 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2018-01-31.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 :::::Justified or not, that notification was not the slightest bit neutral. Let's not pretend it was. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::I'm sure the closer will take that into account. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 02:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
-:::::If we're going to hyper-analyze the language of notifications to appropriate stakeholders, let me point out that the RfC listing for the Village Pump discussion was "These 444 pages are lists of ''every single city'' each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of [[Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY|Wikipedia is not a directory]]?" (emphasis from original). Hardly bald either. -- <font color="green">''W7KyzmJt''</font>&nbsp;'''<sup><font color="#EE7600">[[User:W7KyzmJt|See]]</font></sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/W7KyzmJt|Hear]]</font></small>&nbsp;<sub><font color="#FFB90A">[[User talk:W7KyzmJt|Speak]]</font></sub>''' 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
+::::::If we're going to hyper-analyze the language of notifications to appropriate stakeholders, let me point out that the RfC listing for the Village Pump discussion was "These 444 pages are lists of ''every single city'' each of these airlines fly to. Should Wikipedia be hosting this content or is it a case of [[Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY|Wikipedia is not a directory]]?" (emphasis from original). Hardly bald either. -- <font color="green">''W7KyzmJt''</font>&nbsp;'''<sup><font color="#EE7600">[[User:W7KyzmJt|See]]</font></sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/W7KyzmJt|Hear]]</font></small>&nbsp;<sub><font color="#FFB90A">[[User talk:W7KyzmJt|Speak]]</font></sub>''' 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Keep all''' These lists seem of more encyclopedic value than the lists on airport pages in that they keep historical destinations served in addition to current. Based on this I'd like to see them stick around. [[User:Garretka|Garretka]] ([[User talk:Garretka|talk]]) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Don't delete; redirect and keep the history for partial merges where appropriate'''. I don't personally agree with the result of the RfC but I will accept that the close was a reasonable reading of the discussion, and never mind that I didn't know about the RfC until after it was closed.  What I don't see, however, is that this conclusion necessarily demands the obliteration of all this content and sourcing information forever from the view of editors who might make legitimate encyclopedic use of the content. I expect that this issue is likely to come up most forcefully in articles about historic airlines (look for example at the content and footnotes at [[Braniff International Airways destinations]] or [[Pan Am destinations]]), but in all cases, information about evolution of route structure is essential to a full understanding of what happened to the airline.   Note on many of these lists the reference to substantive sources mixed in with other more list-like sources.  Should Wikipedia airline articles include long bald lists of every airport served?  Perhaps not, if we believe the RfC.  But should the articles refer to and describe the origination and changes in route structure? Absolutely. Can this content help?  In some cases, possibly.  Is there some compelling BLP-like reason it should be removed from edit history nonetheless?  Not that I can see.  --[[User:Arxiloxos|Arxiloxos]] ([[User talk:Arxiloxos|talk]]) 18:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)