Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive

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 Keep all. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines destinations

American Airlines destinations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, notability is a criteria for the inclusion of an article in our encyclopedia. A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. It is quite clear that these lists fail this criteria. Except for that, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that Wikipedia is not a directory. Based on well, this argument, and some others, the highly relevant AfD on Livingston Airline Destinations resulted in a delete. Please, before submitting your thoughts here, read through the relevant discussion there.

In addition to the nominated page, I would like to batch-nominate 172 related articles. Per instructions on WP:AFD, I was to add a list of batch-nominated articles below using {{la}}. However, the sheer size of that list - 172 entries - prompts me to link it instead. You may view it here.

Briefly, it contains every article listed in Category:Airline destinations at the time of writing. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

--List by BIL 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work BIL. Now, though, the AfD is harder than usual to edit. Good thing they are included though... perhaps then people will grasp we're actually talking about I don't know how many articles. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

that's fixed now/wangi 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Due to the dynamic nature of this sort of information, trying to mantain a series of encyclopedia articles on it seems impossible. The airlines' websites are the places people should be going to find out this information, not Wikipedia. Tevildo 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Destinations don't change all that much. What does change is the routes flown. WP:AIRLINES has been trying to keep route information out of the articles for this very reason. Destinations are a compromise that are maintainable. Vegaswikian 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How about keeping it all out of the encyclopedia? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It should be noted that I'm adding {{subst:afd1|American Airlines destinations}} to all damned articles... by hand! AWB would only let me prepend notices to talk pages :( (Not that this is an argument for deletion, I just want some sympathy.) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Additional information - there have been at least three prior discussions regarding such articles in the last year. Summary:

  Flybe destinations - result was merge (content kept)

  Hawaiian Airlines destinations - result was redirect (content already existed on main article)

  Livingston Airline Destinations - result was delete (content not kept anywhere) --- RockMFR 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly a Delete, but Jobjörn, considering that there are just so many of them, perhaps it would be better to bring the precedent to a different venue (i.e., the IRC channel on Freenode, or the Administrators' fora, or...)? --Dennisthe2 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's hardly a challenge, is it? ;) Anyhow I'm done now. It didn't take too long: 46 minutes! :D Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Weak keep - Generally this type of information would be considered similar to an almanac or a reference table. In my opinion the main argument against listing airline destinations is the highly dynamic nature of the information (similar to listing all the destinations served by Amtrak or Greyhound Lines). Also this information seems to be less encyclopedic and more like a travel guide (which would perhaps qualify it for inclusion in Wikitravel). I remember when airlines used to give out timetables in paper format, such information might qualify for Wikisource. --Oden 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to weak keep. I would like to see that this content be transformed into something useful. For instance rather than merely writing a list it would be interesting to show past destinations which are no longer served (a historical reference). It would also be interesting to read text on the development of the airline's routes.--Oden 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- That can actually be arranged and would be a very interesting project for WikiProject Airlines. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT. I tried getting a reason here for why these articles even existsted, but I didn't really get a satisfactory answer. Axem Titanium 04:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like someone from the related WikiProject to explain why these exist and/or are needed before I decide my opinion on this. --- RockMFR 05:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Reply - They inform the readers the places where an airline flies, which is pretty vital information when you think about it, just like airport articles contain large lists of the airlines located within the airport, as well as the destinations flown by those airlines from that airport, a reader would want to what destinations an individual airline flies to. The reason we separate these into subarticles, however, is because they are most often very large and won't fit well within the airline's article itself, thus, these are actually just subarticles attached to the airline articles (just like List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre is attached to Columbine High School massacre). It's the same basic information as that list there, just like people want to know who died in that massacre, and people would also like to know where an airline flies to, it gives a better perspective on the airline's goals and achievements. Most of all however, these lists are important information from a main article which doesn't fit in it so, something that exists ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA, if you delete these, then we better get on deleting all of those, too. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to comment reply: The comparison of List of American Airlines destinations and List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre and stating it's the same basic information is, to me, disgusting and revolting. Even though I live on the other side of the world I am unable to comprehend how one can compare a list of murder victims in a highly publicized massacre shown in the news ALL OVER THE WORLD - with a list of trivial airline destinations. The list of Columbine victims is not trivial, it is certainly of encyclopedic value and most definitely passes all notability/verifiability/etc guidelines you could think of.
      Now, compare that to a list of destinations of an airline. While it might be true that it gives the reader a list of destinations an individual airline flies to and that might actually be useful, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What are company websites for? Or, for that matter... Wikitravel? Wikipedia is neither and should not be treated as such.
      Based on the core of your arguments ("it's useful"), I should write Jobjörn Folkesson and include my phone number and place of residence. Then, I could tell people to look me up on Wikipedia instead of giving them obscure numbers! Now THAT would be useful, wouldn't it? But, Jobjörn Folkesson is still a redlink. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• right, ok... well, i don't give a flying fuck anymore... jsut disregard anything i've said and delete all you want, i don't care, i've got enought fucking problems in my life right now to spend time arguing bullshit on wikipedia, and i'm gone anyway, i've wasted enough of my life on this shit as is, 25 months... like you'd care anyway. goodbye. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • • Comment - Actually, the list of victims of Columbine isn't any more "encyclopedic" than a list of airline destinations. Obviously the event itself deserves an article, but the fact that it was a horrible event doesn't mean it should receive special treatment when it comes to a list of victims. Should we create a list of every single victim of the Holocaust? I don't think anyone will argue that it was less significant than the Columbine massacre. DB (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- You crazy people, you fight to the death to keep crap about non-notable high schools which no one cares about, yet you refuse to inform readers the places an airline flies to... this type of double standard really kills this place, and if you know me you know I would not normally respond this way, but seriously, I use these pages a lot, and if you go ahead and delete this, then I guess I could go on my campaign to delete record albums, since unless they've won an award they mean no more than these lists do... oh wait, i know, I'll go by and begin campaigning to delete all lists on wikipedia, since this is what this is... a list, so if you like keeping your lists then you'll keep this... or if not, then the list of emperors, lists of baseball players, the list located in the article primate city, list computer games by genre, list of high schools in Florida, and all the other lists that sit around on my watchlist can get a nice gray AFD tag placed on it. <sarcasm>Now, continue... since this could be the nice beginning to the removal of all those crappy lists which are really nothing but trivial, almanac type information that are difficult to maintain</sarcasm>. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 07:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: First of all, remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, please. Calling the other side "crazy" in an AfD discussion will hardly aid us in the building of an encyclopedia.
    Furthermore, you group AfD !voters in a highly unfair way. I would certainly not defend the inclusion of non-notable high schools (in fact I'd do my best to get even my own deleted), and if I did, I would CERTAINLY not do so to death.
    That you use these pages is not an argument. Although I wish you all luck in your campaign to delete record albums, that is a matter ENTIRELY unrelated to this - a certain logical fallacy, if you wish.
    Well, the rest of your comment hardly makes any sense, although your suggestions on other lists do seem quite justified an encyclopedic. Except for List of Emperors which... well... doesn't even exist. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- I am using these pages right now for a research about airlines and their destinations. I am pretty confident I'm not the only one who goes to Wikipedia to verify the destinations of an airline or an airport, instead of spending more time browsing through an airline website for that information. There are better candidates out there for deletion. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 07:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relying on such a list might not be advisable if it hasn't been updated in a while. See also Wikipedia:General disclaimer.--Oden 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Using a Wikipedia article rather than the easily-available, more-updated and more-in-context original source for verification is a highly inadvisable way of doing research. Check in with your research methodology prof. Bwithh 08:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from the advice from the gentlemen above, I'd like to suggest that you are indeed the only one who goes to wikipedia to verify something found elsewhere, especially at an authoritative source such as the comapny's website. Usually, you see, it's the other way around. Nevertheless, this is parly something of an WP:ILIKEIT !vote, and also another red herring - two wrongs does not make a right. If there are better candidates for deletion out there, please nominate them for deletion, will you? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If we are deleting lists of destinations served by an airline, should we not also remove the same information from an article on an airport (for instance John F. Kennedy International Airport#Terminals, airlines and destinations). --Oden 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Reply-- Just because no one's edited it doesn't mean it's not updated, American Airlines just hasn't flown to any new destinations since its last edit. If you think you'll get the list of airlines in airport articles deleted, then you're really crazy, because that's the part of those articles that's maintained the most... not to mention the fact that information is VERY vital to the article due to it being the primary function of any airport. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you really think that I am crazy, see WP:NPA. If it was just a clumsy form of expression see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Oden 08:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Clumsy form of expression, but regardless, I don't see how I targetted you specifically in any of this other than saying you're crazy to suggest deleting the list of airlines in airports, but I still think it's a crazy idea to consider this cruft since they are not individual articles, but subarticles. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you whole-heartedly, Oden. The same information should indeed be removed from airline-related articles. As you can't batch-nominate sections in an AfD, however, that will have to be brought up and argued over at the respective article's talk page... preferrably when this issue has been settled, so that we have a precedent. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT. In addition, this information is always going to be more updated and more in context on the AA website, so this is redundant too. Bwithh 08:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per WP:NOT. This sort of information is well beyond the point at which an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia, stops and a compnaies own website takes over. Nuttah68 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As the creator of the article in question here (waaaaay back on 27 November 2004) I strongly believe that this is a necessary page. The content was originally on the American Airlines page and was a big space taker. Since the move it's gotten a lot bigger and complete, so it wouldn't fit well on the back where it was and the content would have to be deleted, which strikes me as a silly thing to do. This information isn't available in an easy list format on the AA.com website, you have to go though a time consuming map system. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 12:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although it is indeed useful, its encyclopedic value must be questioned. Is it encyclopedic? No. It is a collection of information, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would suggest it is re-written on Wikitravel (mere copying is impossible due to copyright issues, I believe), that seems to be the most relevant and accessible place for such a list. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom and WP:NOT, even per WP:CRUFT. While these airlines are encyclopedic, their destinations can be summarized into neat sections on the respective airline's article. Comment: To all those whose argument includes the "there are better things to delete" clause, I'd like to say that it's not relevant at all. Please keep your points focused on these articles alone. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an uncommented dump of original data. The proper place for it is the airline's website. Dr Zak 15:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. If Interstate 80 in California can list the exits of I-80, why can't we list destinations for airlines? I don't see the harm. - grubber 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:The comparison does not take into account the dynamic nature of airlines service as opposed to the static nature of a fixed installation. A list of toll bridges or a list of airports is usually something that will stand for a long time, as opposed to a list of scheduled service which might change with short notice. --Oden 01:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment your argument for keep is answered at WP:ILIKEIT#What about article x? and WP:ILIKEIT#It doesn't do any harm. Nuttah68 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All - Obviously notable where an airline flys to. One change I would make is the inclusion of "when the article was last updated" with some sort of standard template. One of the benefits of wikipedia over other encyclopedias is its ability to handle dynamic information such as this. --MarsRover 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at the bottom of each page, there is a line that shows when the article was last updated. Vegaswikian 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, wikipedia rocks. then change mine to unconditional keep all. side note: all this trans-wiki talk is rubbish. these articles will only have enough exposure to be updated if left here. --MarsRover 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • An article shouldn't be on Wikipedia just for exposure. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: To be perfectly frank, I'm seeing a disparity here. While this is certainly useful information, it's also my opinion that it has become something that Wikipedia can't include. (Accordingly, my delete - above - still stands as a blanket.) But that said, given that there is a) precedent to have it exist due to interest, b) precedent demonstrated by other Wikis to take more narrow subject matter off of WP (see, for instance, Wikia), and c) plans to create a transit Wiki sitting on my desk at home, would there be interest in including such information within such a realm? --Dennisthe2 19:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe Wikisource will take it. Wikipedia just isn't the place for uncommented data dumps like this, even if they happen to be useful data dumps. Dr Zak 20:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this would be the right venue accordingly. It's a bit specialized - and WS seems to allude that this would be deleted here. Closest I can find is the Travel page on Wikia right now, but even that is kind of putting something odd there. --Dennisthe2 21:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all - the information is actually verifiable by third party sources. OAG publishes a list of every route served by every airline in the world. As we mentioned before, simplying copying that list would be excessive, however, the OAG lists can easily be used to compile a destination list for each airline. DB (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course the data is verifiable. So is the text of a poem. We don't keep collections of poetry, why should this be kept? Dr Zak 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please also see WP:ILIKEIT. Just because it's true doesn't mean it belongs here. --Dennisthe2 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is that half of the argument for deleting it (non-verifiable) is not valid since it isn't true. DB (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - this information (whether summarized or not) *would* be appropriate for the articles of each respective airline. However, in almost all cases, there is just too much to justify merging. I'm not sure if transwiki is a good solution for this. --- RockMFR 21:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom... Addhoc 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: if the outcome of a AfD is delete, as opposed to merge, then adding the content of the deleted article to another article is not the right thing to do (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livingston Airline Destinations and this diff). Anyone who thinks that this information should be merged in any form into another article should say so and not act unilaterally. --Oden 01:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You should also point out that as a part of reviewing that deletion decision, the administrator who judged that the consensus was to delete offered to make that data available to be merged into the parent article. I guess that the closing admin here needs to decide how to handle the closing if there is not a well defined and factually supported consensus to delete. The option to merge back in is clearly on the table given the precedent cited above. Vegaswikian 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This is essentially a useful list acting as a sub-page to American Airlines. It should be part of the 'American Airlines' article, and would be relevant and appropiate there, except for the fact that it would be impracticle to do that because of the huge size the list would be. - Paxomen 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete—non-encyclopedic. As far as I can tell there are no secondary sources for this information. The only source for this information are the airlines themselves—why would anyone want to get this information from Wikipedia when they can get the information from the airline?--Riferimento 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, because Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and these will be difficult to maintain as destinations are always changing. Really crufty too. Dragomiloff 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all for WP:NOT. This is an indiscriminate list of information without any actual encyclopedic value. If some line has something exceptional (the firts regular intercontinental line, the longest commercial line, the only line between the US and Cuba (with the political background this would have), ..., then an article for such a line may be completely acceptable. But the current lists are way too detailed for Wikipedia and are indeed a version of listcruft (of which thare are too many other examples still, but deleting those would be a very good start). Fram 06:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These are subpages of the respective airline articles, and a list of destinations would be relevant in the airline articles. Some of the smaller airlines may be able to absorb a merge of their respective list, but I'm not going to try picking through all 172 to find them. BryanG^(talk) 09:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is cruft. Sorry, but it has to go.--Tdxiang 09:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All. We all fight to keep articles of unknown schools and yet we want to delete the destinations of airlines. I don't see the logic in that. Leidiot 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't all fight to keep such articles, I have proposed deletion of many of those and have merged many to their villages or school districts. So your argument is not only invalid (we should keep X because Y is kept) but also incorrect. Fram 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Focus your argument on the articles in question. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep! This info is encyclopedic as it helps all kinds of people who keeps on travelling if they want to find out which airline flies where, just like me for example, I always travel and when I don't know which airline flies where the first place I'll go to is Wikipedia. And I'm sure that the members of WP:AIRLINES will keep on updating this and people who are not members of WP:AIRPORTS will also update it. Just like me, I'm always contributing to Northwest Airlink, Northwest Airlines, and Cebu Pacific destinations. That is why I vote for Strong Keep! Kaya, kailangang talaga na hindi wawalain ang mga nasabing aritkulo. (find a dictionary if you wanna understand what I'm saying). -chris^_^ 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

... but WP:NOT a travel guide. Fram 11:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To the above and all earlier editors who voted delete based on WP:NOT, could all of you kindly explain in what way is an airline list of destinations supposed to be a travel guide?--Huaiwei 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually saying that it is a travel guide, I was commenting on the fact that PikDig wanted to keep it because it is useful for travellers, which is (per WP:NOT a travel guide) an invalid reason to keep articles. I see it more as an indiscriminate list, lacking WP:V indepoendent secondary sources discussing this (not just mentioning them) and lacking encyclopedic interest. Fram 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, but its obvious many are dismissing this bunch of articles for its "functionality as a travel guide". But since we are at it, mind explaining why these articles are an "indiscriminate" list of information?--Huaiwei 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate in the sense that the list adds not enough value and the items linked have no relation with the list as such. What I mean is: a list like List of Presidents of the United States bundles a number of articles on the same subject (as does this one at first glance), and when you go to any of the items listed, you'll learn more about the subject of the list. For every entry in the List of major opera composers, if you click on it, you'll learn more about who he was and why he was a majhor opera composer. With the lists up for deletion now, when you click any entry, you'll find no info whatsoever about the subject of the list (airline destinations). Why is it a destination of this airline? What is the history of this connection? You'll get a link to the city or in the best cases to the airport, but that's it. S7 destinations flies to Hurghada International Airport, and there we learn that S7 is one of the airlines flying to Hugharda. This is indiscriminate, and is not encyclopedic. My main reason for deletion is WP:V though, as explained above. Fram 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly like to know in what way a list of destinations served by an airline adds little value to a study on the airline itself. What else is an airline supposed to do, then, besides transporting people and goods from point A to point B? You contend that articles in List of Presidents of the United States allows you to "learn more about the subject of the list". In what way does a list of continents, regions, countries, cities, and airports an airline flies to fail to allow you to learn more about the market reach and geographical extent of an airline's transport services? Clicking on any of the airports listed usually shows the same airline listed in the airport's airline list, and allows you to compare this airline's market share with its competitors to and from this destination. Do you not learn more about the competition this airline is facing in this particular market? So in what way is the above an "indiscriminate collection of information"? As for WP:V, I find it ironic that others are also demanding for these articles to be removed because they represent "dublicated" information from relevant sources. I am still wondering how possible it is for information to possess both qualities at the same time?--Huaiwei 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To reply to your last point first: the sources which give the information (from which it is duplicated) are primary sources , not secondary ones (the websites of the airline companies, to be precise). A good indication that this is not an encycloepdic list is that there are no sources given which give a historic overview of these destinations, only current lists (encycloepdic articles are supposed to be timeless, although of course new info can be added: but if we don't ahev any historcal info, how encycloepdic can it be?) As for your first point: I don't see how a list of what airlines come to what airport show the market these have (how often do they fly: what is the number of passengers? ...). And to clarify my comparison with other, useful lists again: when you click the link to any rpesident, you understand better what he did when he was president and so on. The subject of the list (presidents) is explained and clarified in every single listed subject. Teh subject of the list "XX destinations" is not clarified or expanded in the linked subjects though: I don't see why city YY or airport ZZ is a significant member of the list, beyond the fact (in the case of the airport) that, well, the list is correct. Big deal, this does not learn me anything. But let's agree that WP:NOT indiscriminate list is in this case perhaps too subjective, and let's focus on WP:V... 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I could not quite catch what you are trying to say in the first few lines. Primary as well as secondary sources may be used in wikipedia. Just because the former is said to require additional care dosent mean it results in a case of non-Verifiability and a violation of WP:V. If so, we will have to remove tonnes of information in wikipedia, many of which are actually based on primary sources. We even had individuals who insist on removing all sources except official ones in airline articles. Encyclopedias do not neccesary reflect "historical value", and in fact, wikipedia is often lauded for being able to update itself and reflect contemporary information faster than traditional mediums. I thus find it strange why you suggest anything devoid of "past information" is less encyclopedic. If so, are articles like Singapore Airlines destinations "more encyclopedic" because it lists and details terminated destinations? And talking about "historical value", I actually had my efforts to include service commencement dates in these lists removed by members of WikiProject Airlines. Rather ironic, it seems. All the more so when you also asks why these lists do not include flight frequencies, number of passengers, etc. I once had such information deleted precisely for being a "discriminate collection of information" [1], [2]. As for your presidential analogy, I beg to differ in opinion. So a click on a presidential's page tells you more about a particular president. Why should a click on an airport served by an airline not tell you more about that airport, and the airline serving it (as per the list of airlines and destinations I mentioned earlier)? Clicking on London Heathrow Airport after noting its "hub" status from British Airways destinations, realising the airport is a major airhub as "the busiest airport in the world, based on international passenger transfers", and then noticing the airline flies to plenty of destinations from this airport, and is up against an entire slew of international airlines, many of which fly on the same routes as British Airways, would normally form quite a marked impression on someone wanting to know the kind of environment the airline is operating in, and to better understand the challenges and corporate decisions it makes. I learn plenty just by clicking on one airport link in that destination list, even if you dont.--Huaiwei 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• 'Strong Keep' It seems to me that the strenght and rationality of the arguments in favour of keeping the article strongly surpass those in favour of deleting it. -- 146.155.232.13 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, not encyclopaedic, and because this offers exactly the same information as the airlines, only with a greater-than-zero chance of it being out of date, downright useless. A lot of keep proponents in this discussion are making the mistake of using the "It's useful" defence, and "it's useful" is the reason why the airlines host this information. Why should an encyclopaedia? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. From what I'm seeing, most of the people asking for these articles to be deleted are probably in no ways interested in the information anyway. There are many people who are interested, and just because you are not does not mean the articles should be deleted. One of the benefits of having such lists on Wikipedia is that they provide an organized listing for a good amount of airlines. One of the arguments by the Con side is that other websites, in this case airline websites, provide the same information. However this argument can easily be put towards a majority of the articles that are on Wikipedia, so I don't see why it can be used here unless the other articles are to be deleted for the same reason. In the case of airline destinations, most airline websites I've visited are very disorganized when it comes to having a list of their destinations, and unless you really know where to find the information beforehand it can be very irritating to find. Wikipedia is the answer to this trouble. And although it may not be quite up-to-date, it still gives a fairly accurate representation in an easy to use, easy to find place. NcSchu 14:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: And just because you and several editors are interested, the articles should be kept? We're not arguing that the articles should be deleted due to lack of interest, and I certainly hope you don't think so. Wikipedia isn't just about reorganizing information. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is at least a tacit link between personal interest and perceived notibility of any given information. I do concur that it appears many who have participated in this debate are not keenly interested in aviation study, let alone experts in the field to consider this "unencyclopedic" for them.--Huaiwei 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

True, and our policies serve to lessen that divide. Regardless, both sides have given some valid points. Now this is getting a little bit meta :P SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which divide are you referring to?--Huaiwei 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The disparity that you referred to regarding interest. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally when information is removed from an article to reduce the article's size, its notability is still based on the article it came from. While the goal is to keep each article notable, this will be easier to do with some. There is no issue with WP:V other then the amount of time needed to include references for each and every entry which is apparently what the delete voters are asking for. Just exactly what will be served by doubling the size of every one of these articles to provide these references? Exactly what value will they provide? Will anyone actually look at those references? If anything, trying to add those references would increase the workload so much that the lists would not be updated and become obsolete providing a reason to delete them. Also, main airlines do publish this information in their in flight magazines. Since these are closely watched by stock market analysts, any misinformation would be made know to the public so they can be considered accurate and reliable. Vegaswikian 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As Splot suggested earlier, it is not only my intent to rid Wikipedia of the nominated articles, but also of the lists included in the articles - or, rather, re-writing them into neat sections on the respective airline's article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So the overviews that are left and are based on having the other data attached to the overview is all you want to remain? I guess you are also supporting a textual rendition of the history of destinations where the airline has flown. This would be significantly larger than the existing articles and be less useful in being able to find the data. Again what exactly is the reason you are so opposed to allowing this information to exist in the current form? Please select one that has not been shown to be invalid, like WP:V. Vegaswikian 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The articles are encyclopedic and verifiable. To fully understand how a given airline works and its function within society, business and aviation, it is nessesary to know where a given airline flies. Remember that Wikipedia not only includes encyclopedic information for Average Joe, but also for people with special interests within specific topics - this is one of Wikipedias greatest strengths. Some people want encyclopedic information on airports, airlines and aircraft, and so there is a lot of usefull information about this on Wikipedia, including information that some would consider excessive, because they are not looking for information detail at the same level as others. Personally the reason I started reading Wikipeida and later editing it, including articles related to many other topics than aviation, was because Wikipedia had a lot of detailed, still encyclopedic, information on airlines, including their destination, that I read simply because I found it interesting to read about (which maybe is the main purpose of Wikipedia). Arsenikk 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep These articles provide information about the airlines and their destinations is important to provide readers with more accurate and detailed information on the subject. These articles are also helpful to give a guideline on how the airline operates, where and its size. And, they don't solely work as an aid for travel, but interested people in aviation can find it quite useful to increase their knowledge on commecrial airlines. 190.40.71.214 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not only do these articles provide necessary information supporting the articles about the various airlines, but they represent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of work on the part of individual editors. I see no real benefit to the project in deleting all of this, and a very real detriment, if only for the bad will it will engender. Just my opinion as a disinterested observer (I have never edited these articles, and only looked at them after they were nominated). Jeffpw 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then again, those aren't really nothing but WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Further, what do you mean by "necessary information"? Necessary for whom? There are other places than the 'pedia to put it in, in that case. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well the two main arguments in favor of deletion are that it's not verifiable (and I already provided a third-party source for this info), and "I don't like it", which is just as invalid as "I like it". DB (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All The primary reasons for deletion have been: 1) Verifiability - primary is an airline and secondary, at minimum is OAG or the airport itself, so this is no longer a concern. 2) Frequency of change - airline destinantions really do not change that often, and people are watching and updating most of these articles regularly (the ability to update info is what makes Wikipedia valuable compared to a book!). 3) Information is on airline websites - while this info is available on an airline's website, it is often difficult for a lay person to determine as it is usually intermixed with their code-share destinations, whereas this list focusses entirely on those flown by the actually carrier itself. This leaves the question of encyclopedic value. The list has value as it relates to an understanding of the nature of the specific airline - where they fly is of core importance to understanding the business itself. What would be of greater value would be inclusion of service dates, but lack of this information should make it a candidate for improvement, not deletion. Ideally, the information should be included on the main airline page, but doing so would make the article too long. Aphenry 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all These articles have been very useful to me more than once. Sprocket 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per Aphenry. The destinations are an accessible record of an airline's involvement in the cities and airports it serves, just as railway lines. Part of understanding and researching the history of an airline is to know its specific area of service, and summarization in an article won't cut it. Deferring to an airline's website would not help anybody, especially if there's no English translation or is cluttered with codeshare/alliance info, and only adds a very inconvenient step for those who seek Wikipedia for the same information. Improvement of the lists should be the goal. It seems to have been the WikiProject's decision to not include more info about destination lists and make them more "encyclopedic", if that is a viable allegation. Here are some questions I have:
  • How exactly is this information supposed to be adapted for Wikitravel, for those who suggest it belongs there? According to the English Wikitravel's "What is an article?" and their talk page, they seem to have little or no interest in having lists of airline destinations, much less articles about airlines or airports (or other transportation modes).
  • Would categories work (e.g. Category:American Airlines destinations) in which its contents would be airports? They would output exactly the same info as with the destination lists, but prohibit expansion of other info (e.g. inaugural service). Templates could also work, à la those used for radio and TV stations and companies.
    • Categories would present the same problem as putting the destination lists on the airline pages: they would be too long. An airport such as Frankfurt, Kennedy, or Heathrow would be overrun with categories. Keeping it as a separate list enables those who want the information to easily find it, while at the same time allowing those who don't want it to ignore it. DB (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Finally, there are people who are dedicated to updating airline and airport destinations. Destinations are added and subtracted occassionally, but they are not changed often. (What financial or market-based purpose would changing destinations frequently have for a scheduled airline?) Flight frequencies and days of operation vary, however, and that probably causes the confusion. That is a scheduling issue... that is unencyclopedic. Tinlinkin 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have found this information very useful on more than one occasion. this information is an asset to wikipedia and that is what we are all here to do is make wikipedia better. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions.--Huaiwei 08:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep of all the articles. These are all very valuable supplementary articles to our airline articles. They are not intended to give timetable information (there are no departure times, arrival times or flight numbers listed in any of the lists), but to give readers an idea of where an airline flies and hence see where the airline has a comprehensive route network and where an airline does not fly. Information on an airlines destinations is obviously relevant to coverage of the carrier and is very useful to the reader. For example: By looking at the Iberia destinations we can see that Iberia has a comprehensive longhaul network to Latin America while there network to North America is less developed. OK, we could add a sentence which says that in the Iberia article, but for the reader, it is much more informative to have the entire list so that s/he can see for him/herself. As for notability, newspapers regularly write about airlines establishing and closing down routes so I think it easily meets WP:N as well. I myself have frequently found myself wanting to read about airlines, and these lists are a godsend to finding relevant information about them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all of these lists are entirely uncommented. Further down you say that the List of Ryanair destinations tells you that Ryanair tends to fly to secondary airports. Indeed, that's what they do, and it makes all sense to mention that in the article on the airline. Having to deduce that from the (potentially outdated) list is not the business of the reader. Dr Zak 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep of all the articles.These lists seem pretty encyclopaedic to me. I had my reservations when this info was initially subtracted from the airlines articles but with majors this is indeeed just too much information to cram into a general article on the airline. I do use them a lot and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Either keep these or remove all the effing lists on Wikipedia --20:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoivre (talk • contribs)
• STRONG STRONG KEEP These lists are very encyclopedic and also provide important information that is key to the articles of the individual airlines each one represents. DELETING THESE ARTICLES DEGRADES EVERY AIRLINE PAGE ON THIS WEBSITE! Sox23 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If the keep vote is lost, then at least transfer them to subpages of WikiProject Airlines. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually a merge back into the articles that the information came from would be the correct solution if the decision is to not keep the information in seperate articles. Vegaswikian 22:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • <Sarcasm>Yeah, that's a good idea</Sarcasm> The whole reason these articles were created in very first place (over two years ago) was that they took up far too much room on their original pages. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hence the caveat "...if the decision is to not keep the information in seperate articles". That merging the big lists is a better idea than deleting probably says something about the idea of deleting... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sox23. Carpet9 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Those policy and guideline quotes are taken entirely out of context in this debate. These articles are part of a chain of information which in totality has the sourcing level required. Hiding Talk 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - These lists were originally part of the associated airline articles (which are not up for deletion) and a list of destinations is a valid thing to include in an article about an airline. The fact that these lists link to Wikipedia articles for cities and airports also help when doing research via "What links here". As for the argument about the lists getting out of date: there is a group of Wikipedians interested in airports and airlines who keep these pages updated. -- Zyxw 13:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hello there people! Yes, I am still around. I am sad to notice, however, that during the 36 hours and counting my internet connection has been down, this AfD has been flooded with keep !votes. The only new argument to come up seems to be Vegaswikian claiming that WP:V is not applicable has he HAS found - namely OAG. I grant him that point, it IS a third-party source...
  BUT, WP:V is not nor has never been my argument for deletion. I steadfastly maintain that mere lists of airline destinations is not encyclopedic content - not even if they are considered "part of the main article", "subarticles" or whatever you may call them. True, Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a Directory or an Indiscriminate collection of information. Those two points is what my argument is based on, AND, of course, the precedent set by the already closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livingston Airline Destinations. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The precedent set by the AFD you cited was in fact to merge the list in with the airline per an agreement between me and the closing administrator. In that case I think merging was acceptable because the airline in question was such a small one with a fleet of six aiplanes. In addition, your citing of precedent on a single AFD, which many of the people in the Aviation projects missed, is just as spurious reasoning as the WP:ILIKEIT votes you accuse people of making as you will see from reading the same essay. In fact, Huaiwei and Aphenry among others have provided strong arguments for why this is encyclopedic, not just ILIKEIT. Regarding your other arguments, the lists are not indiscriminate, they were made to provide information about an airline's business, and since flying people from X to Y is what an airline does as its main business it is natural that we provide information on where these X and Y are. We did not just make up a random trivial criterion, we made a criterion which is highly relevant to the coverage of the airline. The lists are not a directories either, a directory is something people use to look up a directory entry in. Nobody is going to use these lists to look up JFK International Airport. The lists are lists to illustrate an airline's business. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Great stuff, your argument for deletion is based upon Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I can't see anything in there that precludes aeroplanes though, so all you have is your argument. Also, let's not assume the precedent at any other debate influences this one. Consensus can change. If you are sad, have the good grace to keep it to yourself, and try and assume some good faith and not assert your point of view that this afd has been flooded. Accept the fact that the consensus may go against you and perhaps move on to more productive areas. Don't make this such an emotive issue, don't personalise the issue and let the debate run its course. Have a nice day. Hiding Talk 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And that deletion is under review, albeit with mixed results at this point. However it should be noted that the closing administrator offered to make the information available so it could be placed in the main article. So while the decision was to delete the article it was not a decision to remove the information. Vegaswikian 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would also like to point out that WP:NOT is not a very good policy since hundreds and probably thousands of articles fall under its guidelines which would basically nominate all for deletition. There are a lot of articles that could qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory, such as Deaths in 2006 (it twelve subarticles). There was a case recently that resulted in a deletition even after a deletition review of several goalscorer articles because they somehow fell under WP:NOT (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_28#FA_Premier_League_2006-07_goalscorers). This policy should seriously be ammended. 190.40.71.214 16:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong KEEP, It is very good article. It would tell people where the airline are flying to which destination. There are some airline company websites which doesn't have the infomation. If you DELETE all the articles, people will not know which destination where the airline is going to. 60.48.117.159 17:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All. This kind of information is more suitable for the airlines' websites, and seems to me to be "indiscriminate information". Certainly it's useful, but it doesn't seem to me to be the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. It's also unclear to me how these pages can be maintained in a consistent and reliable way. WMMartin 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that when this debate is closed we will be able to accept that this is a debate here, and not a vote. My hunch is that the balance of argument here is on one side of the case, while the balance of "I like it" is on the other. WMMartin 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly can see that a lot of people are saying it doesn't meet my standards for inclusion and a lot of people are saying, well it meets mine. There's no killer policy breach here. Let's not make emotive appeals to the closing admin, please, let's trust our admins to be able to read the debate. Hiding Talk 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am confident that this debate will be closed appropriately. I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people who want to keep these pages, as we have a clear and long-standing policy that "Wikipedia is not a directory". This, for me, is the "killer policy breach". What is it about these articles that makes them anything other than a directory ? That's what I can't see. My concern is that no-one who wants to keep these pages has answered this question. I'm quite prepared to accept that the contents of these articles is verifiable, but that's not enough. Several people have suggested that these articles contribute to an understanding of how an airline works: I don't see why - surely the underlying principles of airline management are broadly ( and with certain well-defined exceptions that can be documented in the appropriate articles ) independent of the exact locations serviced. Having just come to this debate today, the balance of reasoning seems to me to be fairly clear, but my worry is that there are several people who seem to have invested a lot in these articles at an emotional level; my hope is that this can be resolved with minimal discomfort for all. Please feel free to contact me to talk about this more any time. WMMartin 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They contribute to an understanding of how an airline works because an airline's purpose is to fly to destinations. I know to some people it may seem insignificant, however an important aspect of any company is knowing what it specializes in. In examining an airline's destination format, this can be achieved most easily. NcSchu 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Brit Air destinations gives more "understanding how the airline works" than a line in the main Brit Air article saying that "Brit Air has regular flights to many regional airports in France and Western Europe" (or a paragraph with the same contents), and a link to the airline website or wherever you get this info from. Similarly, American Airlines destinations can for this purpose be summarized as "American Airlines flies to xx destinations in the USA and yy major cities in all continents". The fact that it flies to Barajas International Airport in Madrid is not really relevant or informative for this purpose. Fram 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That American Airlines flies to Madrid is not irrelevant to our coverage of American Airlines. It shows that AA has a fairly extensive network in Europe since it sees a market in flying to Spain. Large US carriers such as United Airlines do not fly there, so from a person interested in aviation, the fact that AA flies to this city is quite relevant. Saying simply simply that they fly to 11 destinations in Europe says much less. Which 11 destinations? The Continental Airlines destinations article tells us that the airline has 27 European destinations, many of them fairly small cities such as Cologne, Oslo and Belfast. That tells us a lot about their business model, that they see good business in having many direct routes to Europe to smaller airports while some other carriers may rely on routes to larger hubs such as London or Paris. That several of Europe's main airports are missing from Ryanair destinations tells us a lot about their business model, how they try to avoid costly big airports and favor smaller regional airports in the interests of keeping costs and ticket prices low. Trying to summarize this into a paragraph as you suggest will be unhelpful to the reader. The author of such a paragraph is forced to make a decision of what is significant enough to fit into a small paragraph and that leads to a certain bias: what s/he determines as significant is not what someone else may determine as significant. Perhaps the author does not appreciate the significance of seeing that Northwest, Continental and USAirways fly to Gatwick rather than Heathrow in London, while United and American go to Heathrow, but from an aviation perspective, this may be quite significant. The reader is left to trust the author's bias and that is detrimental to his or her understanding of the business model of the airline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think it is much better to explain the business model of the airline in text format, with some enlightening examples (and sourced of course, no OR), than to give a list of destinations and let the user make his own conclusions. While I agree on the difference between Ryanair and other carriers, I don't see a clear difference between the 5 American carriers you mentioned, and it certainly is not obvious (to me) from the list of destinations. But that's my opinion, not really a policy or guideline debate, and "I (don't) like it" or "it is (not) useful" are not really good arguments (not directed to anyone in particular, I use them as well). Fram 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

An airline's purpose is certainly to fly to destinations, sure. And I can easily understand that there may be differences in the ways that a regional airline serving a large number of small-ish cities and an international airline serving only capital cities, say, may be managed; I'd expect us to cover this appropriately. I can also understand that certain routes ( London to New York, Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, say ) may be subject to special conditions; I'd expect us to cover this. But I don't see what is gained by giving a detailed list of exactly which airports are covered by exactly which airlines. What I'm trying to say is that I think we're right to cover general principles of route management and so on, but that we shouldn't go to the level of granularity you're advocating. I feel that our articles should aim to enlighten people about general principles - if you want to know how an airline works, we should be your first port of call - but if we follow your train of reasoning through I suspect we end up trying to understand how each airline works at a level of detail that, by focussing on the individual airports, tends to detract from an understanding of the more general principles of airline management. I do think that the point that you're making here makes sense, but I think that if we follow it through to its inevitable conclusion we end up being less instructive, by obscuring generalities with specifics. When we get down to the level of granularity you're advocating, I think we move out of the realm of encyclopedia and into the realm of specialist text. WMMartin 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: When will a decision be made regarding the articles? There seems to be a lot more "keeps" rather than "deletes"? Sox23 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A decision will be made after 5-7 days. The next day that will be 'closed' is 12 January. Remember that the decision could very well be no consensus or even delete. Vegaswikian 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep I don't understand why these articles have been flagged for deletion. I use them. I enjoy them. Lists in various forms are essential parts of enyclopaedias. The only thing I can think of is that a minority group wants to impose its will over another minority group in Wikipedia. I note that the initial person proposing the deletion of these articles regards himself first and foremost as an anarchist, and I then wonder if this proposal to mass delete is simply part of power struggle to show what a single anarchist can achieve. I note further that this deletion proponent has no particular interest in aviation, and wonder why he is concerned about this subject, when there are undoubtedly a lot of dubious articles in his areas of interest that could warrent further attention. Many people have spent thousands of hours working diligently to collect information that many other people use for a wide variety of purposes. Now a group of "aginers" wants to destroy this invaluable work. I find these lists of destinations at least as notable, and as valuable, as the discographies of countless singers and groups. The sheer number of these articles indicates that there is an interest in them, and the discussion here indicates that many feel a need for them, and that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for these needs to be met. My major concern is that if these pages are deleted it will be a signal to many active editors that their services are no longer appreciated at Wikipedia. They will go on and work on other projects on other websites, and Wikipedia will the looser. CaviaPorcellus 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you CaviaPorcellus! I agree. Sox23 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I so agree with you. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

VERY STRONG KEEP These pages are very informative. They give an indication of the growth and expansion of the airlines. The destinations also give insight into whether the airline in question is more of a hub airline or a an airline that flies only to neighbouring countries. Please keep Jaw101ie 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to address the issue of these articles as directories as that seems to be a major premise in the case for deletion. They are presented as concisely as possible and without scheduling or routing (stopovers etc). Therefore they are not directories, they are supplementary reference articles. I reject the analogy airline destinations = directory, I would say these articles are more like reference tables. Under the WP:NOT#DIR there includes the caveat "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." An example of just such a quick reference is that Air Canada, for instance, flies to several routes in South America but none in Africa. This information is often unavailable or masked on airline websites because of their extensive alliances and codesharing. I argue that including all notable destination information in the body article would be unnecessarily long-winded. It has been well-established in this thread that the information is verifiable (see comment 20:36, 14 January) and that they are updated regularly (see comment 13:38, 17 January 2007; others have noted the possibility of adding a disclaimer). Nothing in the WP:NOT directly applies to these articles, including WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I am puzzled as to the exact text in the policy that fits these articles. (Apologies if the format of this comment is non-standard, I am a relatively new user.) Maltara 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP

All these pages provide information on Airline services information. Wikipedia is a place for information. This should be kept. It is also a very quick reference to find airline destinations. Greekboy 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

VERY STRONG KEEP I found this deletion page because I was looking for a reference for destinations to which Malév Hungarian Airlines flies. Exactly the point of Wikipedia… to serve as a reference. To those who argue that the airline webpages are where you’ll find this information most accurately, that is incorrect, otherwise I would have gone there first. Many airlines will list destinations without actually flying there… instead their codeshare partners do. Case in point, looking at the Malév Airlines corporate page, one would be led to believe that Malév flies from Budapest to Cleveland. They don’t. To get to Cleveland on this airline one would have to take a Malév flight to New York's JFK Airport, and then transfer to an American Airlines flight to Cleveland. While you can’t determine this from the company webpage, you can determine from Wikipedia that Malév doesn’t serve Cleveland. In this case and many like it, Wikipedia’s information is clearly more informative and precise than the airline’s own site. Further, I learned far more about what Malév is as a company by looking at their destination list than what I learned from reading in the main article that “Malév flies to 59 cities in 35 countries.” That last bit of information doesn't tell me much. If I was looking for a travel guide the airline's webpage would suffice. As a traveler I want to go from point A to point B. I don't really care how I get there. As someone interested in both commercial aviation as well as foreign commerce, the destination list is extremely helpful. In addition to giving a clear depiction of the scope of the airline's operations, the destination list also provides an indication of the home country’s trade and commerce partnerships (Hungary in the case). In another example of this, the list of the 157 cities served by American Airlines looks quite different from the list of 87 cities served by Aeroflot. It is also very useful in comparing the competitiveness of each airline in various markets. Simply put, a list depicting where they fly indicates to me in many ways who they are. The argument has also been made that these pages should be deleted because the Livingston Airline destinations page was deleted. Wikipedia clearly states that precedence is not a valid argument on whether or not to delete a page; perhaps we could forget that argument. The argument has further been made that airline destinations change too often to be listed, implying that updating them would prove burdensome. I used to work in the airline industry and can assure you their destinations do not change all that frequently, certainly not as often as tens of thousands of other ongoing topics that are covered by Wikipedia that change daily! These destination pages are references. They are good references. Please keep them. Hebron 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't studies this example, but how do you know or think to know that this information is more reliable than the company's website? The article is completely unreferenced, so any info on it is uncheckable for now. I know that being currently unsourced is not a reason for deletion, but I wonder where you get the very strong certainty that this page is correct, when you didn't know what info you would get beforehand (if you did, you wouldn't need it as a reference). Where are the WP:V sources? Fram 06:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:V is discused above. Even the nominiator agrees this information can be verfied by independent third party sources. If these articles are kept, I suppose that a template could be created to list all of the sources and included in every article. It would be rather large however. Or we could start referencing the source for each change. That would probably make the article unmaintainable since the extra workload would be huge compared with each change. Vegaswikian 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep

These articles are informative and give information which is totally neccessary. If these aren't included, then all the airline articles loose a lot of credibility. Not having the destinations would be like having an article about a football team without a list of players, it just wouldn't work. If the list of destinations has to go, then theoretically half of the articles on wikipedia have to go. Flymeoutofhere 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The difference being that football teams are judged on the aggregate merits of their players, yet airlines are not judged on the aggregate merits of their destinations. Static Universe 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WMMartin has me convinced. Hiding Talk 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. See this article from today for an example of independent media coverage of an airline's destinations (in this case Continental's European network). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Continental's business strategy should be discussed in its article. This is a great argument for deletion. Dr Zak 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it is an argument for notability. I would not present arguments for deleting lists which I want to keep. We have an independent media who finds the European destination list so notable and significant that they are willing to put it in a sidebar. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No, the article doesn't find the European destination list notable. What the article does is state the thesis that Continental finds it profitable to fly to secondary airports in Europe and then lists those secondary airports that the company put on in the last few years. This is by no means the complete list of destinations in Europe. In contrast, the "List of Continental Airline destinations" is huge, uncommented and supports no thesis whatsoever. Dr Zak 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Static Universe 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my vote. Static Universe 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (all), but we need to discuss appropriateness of such lists in the airline articles themself, and airport articles - deletion of these articles should not be taken as support for deleting the sections in airport and airline articles. WP:NOT isn't really the main problem here, verifiability is. A large number of editors spend a large amount of time updating these lists, but this time would be much better spent on topics which are (without doubt) encyclopaedic. For example rather than a list of destinations we should have a section on notable and significant destinations, route development and impact of external forces on an airline (or airport) route map. Thanks/wangi 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to verifiability: what about OAG, FAA, and any number of paper and online timetables? It may be that the articles are poorly referenced, but that premise is an argument for further work, not mass-deletion. The nominator of this AfD has conceded that WP:V is not the issue. Maltara 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changing my !vote to keep. I'd strike the former, but I don't think I've actually "!voted". Note that I do not wish to withdraw my nomination but rather let it run. So, why am I changing my mind? Because recent discussions both here and in another AfD has convinced me that what the community considers to be suitable for an encyclopedia is not what I would agree with it in many cases (such as this, really). However, faced with these facts, I give in - although I do still think that means that while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is not an encyclopedia either, but rather a discriminate collection of information, or something like that. A jolly good day to y'all, now back to my unvoluntary wikibreak! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A nonomination is counted as a vote, so by this action, you are indeed withdrawing the nomination too. Not that it really matters. I am glad this topic is given some trashing out of opinions, with many good points from both sides.--Huaiwei 12:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, do not consider it a keep opinion. I still really think they should be deleted, I just don't think deletion would be in accordance with community consensus. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's right. Sox23 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is useful information. It is dynamic and can be dynamically updated by Wikipedians. If the rules forbid this, then change the rules. Having this is a Good Thing. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I am rather disturbed by multiple users expressing the view that the articles should be kept, regardless of whether they violate policy (the rules) or not. This attitude is succintly summarized by Gerritholl's clause, "If the rules forbid this, then change the rules." If anyone would indeed like to change the rules, please do raise it on the respective policy talkpage, and ensure that the modifications reflect consensus. Otherwise, current policies will apply in this AfD. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been arguing pretty strongly that these articles do not violate any policy. The lists are verifiable (sources are at the very least the airline's timetables, and if you must have something independent you can see OAG per DB's comment). Since the lists are plainly read off these sources without any form of interpretation or synthesis along the way the articles are not original research either. Since the articles present bare facts and no value judgements, there is no violation of WP:NPOV. Since the destinations of an airline, that is an airline's main business, are highly relevant to the airline's business, and since newspapers frequently write articles about comings and goings of an airline, and business journals frequently discuss an airline's route network, the lists are notable and not indiscriminate. Saying that the argument for inclusion is based solely on WP:ILIKEIT arguments is patently false and it is becoming very tiresome to to have to say this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I meant nothing of the sort. Please don't assume; my comment was marked as a comment for a reason. I never accused you of anything, so there's no need to be so defensive. I never stated that the argument to keep was based solely on WP:ILIKEIT, I was merely describing a trend which I thought should be pointed out. As I said, current policies will apply in this AfD, which does not refute any of your WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:N arguments. Try to understand my full intent before blasting out everything again. Thanks. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was venting some frustration coming from WMMartin's comments further up who said that the delete side had all the arguments while the inclusion side only had ILIKEIT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It's okay, I understand. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this is kind of a separate, albeit related issue, but some of those destination lists have only 10-15 cities on them. Those definitely should be merged back into the airline(s). DB (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT a collection of miscellaneous information. DS 21:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a data dump/indiscriminate collection of information/history of time/ect. For the heck of it I'll cite Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FA_Premier_League_2006-07_goalscorers, which was endorsed with such comments as WP:IWORKEDHARDONITANDNOWIMGOINGTOLEAVEYOUDELETIONISTB*ST*TD are not apprprient keep arguements and don't help establish consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - A lot of the arguments for the keep side are not WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Thanks. NcSchu 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly effective tactic when you're behind in an argument: place as much emphasis on the weakest elements of the opposition's statements (the editors who used ILIKEIT) in the hopes of drawing attention away from the valid ones (sources to contradict the verifiability claims, reasonable arguments against the theory that it is an indiscriminate collection, etc.). DB (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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.