Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines former destinations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:NOT problem. Sandstein 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United Airlines former destinations
Former airlines and destinations (albeit in different contexts) have been discussed before (1), and the arguments are that it's not encyclopediadic, difficult to verify, does not assert notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Matt (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, this same discussion has already been had. I believe the old votes should apply for this new article. --Matt (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the article was rewritten by hand. It's not like the author could revert it because it was deleted from the logs. Given that this is a different version of the article, and because of the effort expended by this author, and because voting has already started, it would be hard to suspend this vote and reinstate the other one. Just my $0.0002 cents. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- The same problems apply to the article now that did the last time it was deleted. I'm not saying the old vote should overrule this one, I'm saying the same people last time would probably vote the same way this time for the same reasons. I don't think we should allow an article to stay just because someone worked hard. --Matt 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the article was rewritten by hand. It's not like the author could revert it because it was deleted from the logs. Given that this is a different version of the article, and because of the effort expended by this author, and because voting has already started, it would be hard to suspend this vote and reinstate the other one. Just my $0.0002 cents. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as per nominator. Former destinations are really all that encyclopedic and aren't needed that much. There isn't even sourcing to say why even some of the destinations were terminated. Rudget.talk 15:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - very important to keep track of where an airline is shifting its focus. It's not hard to source because we can use just use the Wayback Machine. Thanks. --Inetpup (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- What would you use the wayback machine on? --Matt (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- We would just put in a
<ref>to a wayback archive of an old flight schedule or an old version of the airline's web page that shows that destination was served. Simple as that! --Inetpup (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- We would just put in a
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel directory, even an out of date one. Majoreditor (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge merge to United Airlines - and condense to perhaps just a ref, or add a hint to the article of some of the more notable former destinations :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep is the first preference. Merge to United Airlines destinations is the secondary preference. If there is need to condense, get rid of list and just use commas to condense to something manageable.--CSharpBeatsJava (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete . Very much. It's listcruft. And even if it was not in a listform, it's just trivial information. WP:NOT#DIR. Greswik 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
