THC Science

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delayed deletion. Phew! I’m closing this as delete but I’m going to delay the actions until after the inevitable DRV which can be started without pretending to discuss the close with me for forms sake.

Let’s set the scene. VPP discussions do not authorise deletion but its not true to say that only arguments in an AFD can support deletion as the whole point of closing against consensus is that we measure the arguments against wider policy considerations and a cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject. A good example of this is marginally notable BLPs regularly being deleted because BLP1E out trumps the gng.

So we have a wider consensus from VPP that this class of articles fail NOTDIR and are effectively UNDUE often being spun out of articles because they are too unwieldy. On the other hand we have arguments to keep on the basis that they pass the GNG and are effectively useful, What is also unhelpful was canvassing on the keep side meaning that I had to give the keep arguments a little less weight to balance that out - but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus.

It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV and, likely, further discussion at ANI before the final consensus is clear. I am therefore delaying enacting the close which ever is the later of until consensus is clear or two weeks. I’m leaving tags on so that interested editors can find the latest links of where the discussion is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After review, the above close is overturned to Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adria Airways destinations[edit]

(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]

I've never used Wikipedia to search for travel information on what airline flies where, or used it to plan a trip. However, I have used Wikipedia in the same way I've used old airline books: figuring out the scope of an airline, especially looking for interesting destinations that show how an airline connects countries you wouldn't expect to be connected, or how this has changed over time. There's more value to this information than using it to plan a trip. SportingFlyer (talk) 23:26, 2 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]

Notice how it says "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". The policy then points to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 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]

Actually, almost all articles are prone to becoming outdated, especially those of geograpical and political topics; the community is responsible for keeping them as updated as possible. See WP:OUTDATED as well regarding your rationale.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions / WP:UPTODATE BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:42, 5 February 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]

That article should be deleted as it is practically promotion with all of the company references it has. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources for statements of fact, such as airline routes. They're being used to state facts; not establish notability. Garretka (talk) 19:14, 5 February 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]

Further comment: The DEN-NRT flight was the primary topic of at least 20 articles in the Denver Bussiness Journal over a 4 year period. The local coverage of this flight has been substantial and ongoing. The national/international coverage has also been non-trivial. Furthermore, formerly lost cats have survived AfD. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going into WP:WAX. We don't need a complete list of destinations, the info can easily be summarized in the main articles about the airline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 5 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]
It looks pretty WP:ROUTINE to me. When adding destinations announcements are made to promote the airline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles of every company borders promotion and we should mind WP:NPOV. If the addition of future services is controversial it can be easily solved by not adding them into these lists until they had already started. WP:WAIT can apply. Conversely, doy you think that the inclusion of termination dates is promotional? I don't think so.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE appears to apply to articles about events, of which these are not. Furthermore, these articles are from reliable sources independent of the subject. Occasionally destinations won't be announced independent of the subject, but that doesn't render the entire list un-notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:40, 6 February 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) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[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]
None of the 22 lists requested to be deleted have been featured. However, these specific lists were requested to be deleted since all airline lists closed with "consensus." I'm happy to hear an argument on why the formerly featured List of Cathay Dragon destinations should not be deleted, but the Adria Airlines should. SportingFlyer (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:SPLITLIST from parent pages and for meeting WP:GNG and lack of any valid deletion rationale apart from extra-policy deletion discussion at VP.

I am advising the closer to note that the Village Pump discussion is a local consensus of few people and shouldn't influence this AfD in anyway the same way "the consensus" lacked power to delete such vast number of article and how the action was overturned by this overwhelming consensus at AN
Referencing VP "consensus" as reason of deletion is invalid deletion rationale because if the consensus was effective to caused their deletion then we wouldn't have come here at all, they would've been left as deleted by that consensus.
Per WP:SPLITLIST These articles mostly were spin off from their parent airline articles because, if incorporated they will cause airline articles to become incredibly large beyond recommend size and for accessibility issues.
These articles passes WP:GNG and are sourced. Example, Air India, EgyptAir. (Also noteworthy, many sources are already provided here by many users.).
Wikipedia is not limited by paper and host voluminous material way beyond that can be found in traditional encyclopedias. it acts as gazzetter, almanacs and general interest encyclopedia to preserve knowledge and facts for posterity. (Updated 14:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)) –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]

Yes, W7KyzmJt, AfD is the only appropriate venue for deletion discussions. But the consensus on what kinds of articles we should and shouldn't have has always been forged elsewhere as well. Are you going to tell me that the WP:N policy is moot because decisions on ultimately keeping or deleting an article are made at AfD? Of course not. AfD makes these decisions, but it makes them based on policies and guidelines. By the way, the RfC didn't close as "these articles should be deleted". It closed as "Wikipedia should not have these lists". It was a discussion on the breadth of WP:N/NOT, not a deletion discussion. The usual advice applies to you; if you think that the RfC overstepped its boundaries, rise the issue at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are at this point procedurally because there was a consensus Wikipedia should not have these lists, which referred the consensus to the deletion process. There is no current consensus on whether these lists should be deleted, though. In fact there is currently a 2-to-1 in favor of "keep." I believe a "keep" vote here essentially means the user believes these lists belong on Wikipedia. I think as more people have become aware of the last discussion through the deletion process, myself included, the original consensus may not be as strong as it appeared. SportingFlyer (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re your statement "consensus on what kinds of articles we should and shouldn't have has always been forged elsewhere as well. Are you going to tell me that the WP:N policy is moot because decisions on ultimately keeping or deleting an article are made at AfD?": Except that there was no new policy or policy change under discussion. The discussion was about how existing policies, such as WP:N, applied to these articles. That's no different than a discussion about whether a biographical article does not meet WP:NBIO and should be deleted. And that type of discussion is only appropriate for AfD. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:06, 7 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]

Wikipedia welcomes editors who focus on Niche topic areas. See WP:BUILDWP#niche BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:42, 2 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]

It's pretty clearly accepted at this point that the closing admin acted in error. Consensus on WP:AN was to restore the articles and go through proper procedures at AfD. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 09:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, W7KyzmJt. The AN thread was about the actions of Beeblebrox who was not the closing admin. AN found no fault with the close of the original RfC and that wasn't overturned. It was found that Beeblebrox had overstepped his boundaries, not that the RfC had. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from the AN conclusion: "There is a strong consensus in this thread that Beeblebrox's deletions of the 444 pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be undone, and the pages listed there should be AfD'd in an orderly manner" (emphasis mine). Furthermore the option that received by far the most !votes stated "The RFC at the village pump did not serve to establish consensus for mass deletion. The pages should be restored and normal AfD procedures followed." I don't know how much clearer agreement you can get that the RfC did not establish consensus. -- W7KyzmJt ^See Hear _Speak 23:43, 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]

That is the exact opposite of how CONLIMITED works. Village pump discussions hold more weight than individual AfDs. They set policy, and AfDs are how we apply policy to individual articles. That the people arguing keep here don't know how Wikipedia policy and consensus works is not a reason to ignore the community consensus on these topics, especially given that the majority of the people who will be commenting here are those with a vested interest in the topic rather than the broader community at the village pump. The closer is required by policy to ignore those opinions that do not fit with the established community consensus. No one is saying that an RfC at the village pump should have deleted the articles. What is being argued is that per that consensus, we should delete them in that AfD. WP:CONLIMITED actually works against keeping them, under every normal reading of Wikipedia policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CONLIMITED,

“

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

”

As far as I can see, on 1 January 2018 Beeblebrox left just these [4] [5] two notifications regarding the VPP discussion, and they seemingly went unnoticed for the participants of the involved Wikiprojects. I don't see that Beeblebrox notified a wider audience, as is the case with this AfD (actually, the VPP discussion attracted far less participants than this one). Following WP:CCC, which was cited several times in this very page, can you please explain how the VPP discussion set precedent when we are here because of the result of an AN discussion that actually challenged the VPP outcome? If, whatever the result, this AfD is not taken as community consensus, having so far attrated more participants than the original VPP discussion, can you please tell me what consensus is?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because VPP is the universally accepted "Wider audience" on the English Wikipedia for policy discussions. There is literally no better place to have that discussion from a policy basis. This AfD is the limited local consensus that lacks notification, not the other way around. The WikiProject people who want to ignore community consensus here are citing CCC: it doesn't work like that, especially so soon after a VPP RfC closed. If you want to challenge that consensus, you start a new RfC to form community consensus. You don't make an AfD where the only people who are going to see it are the people that care about keeping the topic the basis for community policy. So, if you want to change the consensus, start a new RfC. Until then, the closer should ignore everything that goes against that closure. That is what they are mandated to do under our deletion process. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having this discussion after the closure of the one at AN says otherwise.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The AfD is the proper place to discuss article deletion. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment versus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes: "Lists are likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." The consensus at the RfC is a limited policy consensus on this topic alone, possibly by biased authors (the starter of the discussion speedy deleted these articles before they were stopped due to policy reasons). If anything, the proper procedure should be keeping these articles for now based on either a consensus to keep or no consensus, and opening up a new discussion on how to reform these articles to survive a deletion. Articles which are flagrantly in violation of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY should be nominated for deletion next, as opposed to articles by airline alliance. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of keeping them all, just in case you're replying to me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I was replying to the thread (the one above yours), not you specifically. I'm also in favor of keeping them all. Just stumbled upon some very good destination pages which should be emulated which again remind me of those special airline books you used to have to buy. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for me the argument would be that the discussion at WP:VPP was inappropriate to begin with as a violation of the "federalism" that is implicit in Wikipedia's practice of having deletion discussions be centered around the articles that are actually going to be deleted, rather than at a central location without notification to the people who have been editing the article. I am not expert enough in Wikipedia policies to cite a particular guideline here, but consider the scenario in which someone posted an RFC at WP:VPP asking if a particular article should be deleted. That person would (I think) be told that WP:VPP is an inappropriate venue for that discussion, and that the discussion should be taken to AfD, even though the consensus at WP:VPP would be "superior" to any consensus developed at AfD. It seems that this class of articles is not broad enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia guideline -- thus the discussion at VPP was not, in my mind, a policy discussion, but rather an AfD in the wrong venue. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:03, 7 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]

As a sidenote, the closure admin stated that ″the AfD closer should take the RfC closure into account when closing the AfD's″.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. 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]

Delete all - While individual destinations are notable, airline schedules change on a fairly regular basis. Encyclopedic content, however, does not, nor should it. There are a handful of outstanding airlines scheduling resources that can provide up to date schedules for any airlines. In addition, nearly all airlines have their own scheduling resources, which should absolutely be primary. Wikipedia is not the place for it.Clepsydrae (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Schedules change often, destinations much less so. It's big news for a city when they gain or lose an airline. These pages also contain historical destinations, which are much less readily available. CapitalSasha ~ talk 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per WP:PAPER. There are many more lists less notable and more worthy of deletion than this.1.02 editor (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As I stated above, WP:PAPER points to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that dismissing arguments per WP:OSE/WP:WAX is a good thing in this discussion. The reason is that we are not looking at an individual article, but at a whole category of articles. Here, we are basically trying to determine whether airline destination lists should be in Wikipedia. "Should Wikipedia include this type of articles?" is a difficult question, and answering it by looking at what types of articles Wikipedia generally includes seems a sane way of doing it. As there is no other encyclopaedia comparable to Wikipedia (which is both a general purpose encyclopaedia and a collection of highly specialised ones for particular subtopics), we can't hide behind arguments such as "not usually found in encyclopaedias". Deleting these lists, which have exactly the same problems (or not) as, say, List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, will do quite some harm, and no advantage of doing so has been given. —Kusma (t·c) 10:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal point of view though, what if I say that List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company isn't needed? It boils down to a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Here might be a good reason, our sister project Wikivoyage could use things like these as it can be helpful to travelers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point -- which well-sourced non-OR lists we should have seems to be a ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT thing, as we don't have any much better general principle about what belongs and what doesn't. I don't believe there is a convincing argument that explains why TV guides should be acceptable, but destination lists should not. As to your other point, I don't know whether Wikivoyage would like these lists, but I guess they would remove all of the interesting and encyclopaedic information about when or why routes were opened or about former destinations (all of that has no place in a travel guide). —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Airline routes attract considerable media attention (in both the general and specialist media), and are even the subject of conferences (eg, [6]). They also discussed in books on airlines. As such, listings of individual airlines' routes are a notable topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AFD including Singapore Airlines destinations, which I was reading. The purpose of this article appears to be because of WP:SUBARTICLE. As such, the list could be merged into the Singapore Airlines article, but would make it much too unwieldy. Wikiproject Airlines does allow or even specify destinations section. I believe there should be a Wikipedia-wide conference to decide across the board what should be included. It seems that some areas of Wikipedia allow very detailed minutae and some areas don't. The destinations list appears to be average in the minutiae scale and, therefore, should be retained for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTCATALOG. As for the argument that this is useful information: not very, since it's better served by the constantly updated websites of the airline. This also borders on OR. Sjö (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The constantly updated websites of the airline" have exactly that problem: they are constantly updated, and often do not include historical destinations. That makes the airline websites a lot less useful than these lists. As to WP:OR: typical high-quality sources have been provided further up in this discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 07:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sjö, how does Pan Am constantly update its destinations on its website when it stopped existing in 1991 when websites didn't exist?--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These lists are good sources for the travellers and even for the airline companies, since they are even not aware of where they fly to. There are also valuable information that the airline companies flied previously but cancelled for now. These destinations are included in the lists with official references which are reliable, valuable and encyclopedic. So we can call it wikipedic. Ushuaia1 (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - This lists provide usefull information for readers and make Wikipedia being more than just an online eencyclopedia, but an usefull informational tool for readers. FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are just an online encyclopedia and not much more. In particular, we are not a travel guide and our limited scope means that nothing stays for simply being useful. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the alternative, we could have route maps instead of destination lists. For example, I have no plans to ever fly to Angola butright now I would like to know where TAAG Angolan Airlines flies. Do they fly to South America? How many European cities? Just 1 or 2 or more, like 6? To they fly to the Middle East and India? This kind of information is encyclopedic. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent idea! CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep all~~ - I wonder why you nominated only 22 lists of airline destinations for deletion? Why only the members of Star Alliance? What about Sky Team and ME3 carriers? I hope there is no malicious intentions --Ushuaia1 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already commented above. And the reasons for this nomination including just 22 articles is in the link at the top.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per community consensus, including WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What community consensus are you talking about? The community consensus was to AfD the articles after the VP discussion was challenged, and consensus will be reached once this discussion is closed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the prior discussion you will see that editors gave rationales for not having these lists. One idea that I still think could work out would be to copy the lists over to Wikivoyage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History, fleet and destinations are the most important aspects of the arlines. FkpCascais (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - these should not be moved to Wikivoyage as they are not travel guide-related. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These lists tell you which airline will take you where, how is that not travel guide related? It fits WP:NOTDIRECTORY under "current schedules", any historic stops can be put into prose on the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's travel related, it's not travel guide related! I've never seen this information in any travel guide I've ever read, since travel guides don't list all of the places one specific airline can take you. You can't use these lists to plan a trip, since they don't tell you anything about the timetable, or even which routes the airline flies from what airport! Plus, travel guides are never broken out by airline. What these lists do is tell you the geographic scope of the airline, both currently and historically. This is important and encyclopedic! Furthermore, WP:NOTDIRECTORY's current schedule examples refer to television broadcasts, which change constantly. While these are also "current schedules," they do not fit that criteria in the same way: these lists are not timetables, nor do they change all that often - and when they do, they satisfy the notability criteria. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these are not "current schedules": the correct analogy is to lists of TV shows hosted by a given network, which Wikipedia has! CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - "currently scheduled destinations" may be the proper term, not "current schedule." SportingFlyer (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Wikipedia can be used to select an airline is completely moot. WP:USEFUL ness is not a reason to create or keep an article. AadaamS (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument wasn't about usefulness - "let's keep the directory/travel data since it's useful!" - it's that these articles are neither directory (not a catalogue of current schedules) nor travel (not found in travel guides) at all, and therefore deleting them on that basis is unreasonable. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"These lists tell you which airline will take you where"; not directly they won't. They don't say "city A is connected with city B". They show how an airline has changed over time, have they shrunk? Have they grown? Destinations, both present and historical, are among the most notable information for airlines. Garretka (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Notable subject and valid child article of the respective airline article -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as all articles violate the explicitly named WP:NOTTRAVEL. These articles should be migrated to Wikivoyage. AadaamS (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I disagree - these are not articles you would find in any normal travel guide and therefore Wikivoyage is not the proper place for them. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage does not host articles about airlines. Given that airlines are notable (and therefore eligible for inclusion here) and destinations are the core of their operations, it is natural to have them split from the parent article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously Wikipedia changes over time. Similar AfDs have occurred over a decade ago here with eerily similar arguments on both sides: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations/archive and here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_destinations. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. An airline's presence at a given airport is frequently a subject of local press coverage since it is an important part of a city's long-range infrastructure. Furthermore, information of this kind tells a great deal about the airlines' market areas, an important part of any comprehensive coverage. Sure, the same information could be extracted by trawling through all the different airport articles which all have a list of the airlines serving it, but sorting the information by airline is a fully valid way of summarizing the information as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just want to opine that taking this to Village Pump with an RFC was out of process (wrong venue) and whatever happened there should be disregarded. I don't have a strong opinion here although the NOTDIRECTORY argument probably has wheels. Carrite (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[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]

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Adria Airways destinations[edit]