Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  07:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not believe it is necessary for us to have a list of places which are no longer serviced, and this list is not important enough to exist here. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Scapler (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate and useless. That's a pretty rare combo.--Boffob (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - not as rare as one might think, unfortunately. ;D Scapler (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I should add to my reason for delete the following reasons: unsourced, unlikely search term and notability of terminated destinations not established. Merely being true is not reason for inclusion. What does this list offer as encyclopedic info?--Boffob (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. Yep, even for a Wikipedia list, this is pretty bad. Doesn't meet WP:SALAT by a long shot.  Graymornings (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below.
 * keep Neither indiscriminate nor useless. Its a specific list of the places to which they once flew, which is a very sharp and exact discrimination. Its not useless, and is it relevant in understanding the history of the airline--or that country's air transport industry in general--and in elucidating mentions in historical events and geographic descriptions. It's only useless if you think the purpose of Wikipedia is to be a current travel guide. WP NOT is also a positive criterion--of its more than travel guide coverage, it's appropriate here. DGG (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment. I checked it for obvious errors. It appears that the list is generally correct (there's Dublin listed as terminated, Aeroflot does sell it but with a stopover in Prague). But who will maintain it in perpetuity? Some routes may reappear (given current hiatus in Russian airline industry, whole bunches of routes may be on sale tomorrow), is it possible to keep it up to date? It'd rather see it textified to a verbal history of "network optimisation". NVO (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Dublin. Aeroflot definitely terminated destination Moscow-Dublin-Moscow as its own (direct flight) and now operates it in code share with CSA Czech Airlines WITHOUT STOPOVER in Prague. Leg Prague-Dublin is operated by CSA Czech Airlines fleet... --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as DGG says it's "relevant to understanding the history of the airline", thus fulfilling the informational purpose of a list. The only reason to delete this kind of thing and not everything else in Category:Airline destinations would be if wikipedia was actually a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. Juzhong (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually merge with Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations. Juzhong (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge no evidence of notability per guidelines. Aeroflot is notable. If this can be sourced so its verifiable it would be good to have as part of that article perhaps. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Breakout from the main Aeroflot article, which is what we do when articles get too long.  If it would be relevant within an article about the airline it's valid to break it out if the article gets too large. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, bad or overly detailed content is condensed or eliminated. Hiving it off to its own article is simply a way of avoiding making editorial decisions. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think we have Summary style and Subarticle? - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. A list providing no illumination whatsoever, just anorak-level detail. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's an indication that improvements are being made. Perhaps some of the editors who see potential in the article can offer the new contributor some pointers on Wikipedia format.  I can appreciate that this is the editor's first contribution, but he/she needs to provide sources.  Unsourced, uninformative, and, yes, indiscriminate.  We have to take the author's word for it that the list of airports is a list of places that Aeroflot served during the years "1992-2003".  Conceivably, information could be provided about when Aeroflot stopped flying to Pyongyang or Chicago, and conceivably, context could be added to reflect why Aeroflot couldn't afford to serve these locations post-USSR.  Without even so much as a link to something that is useful, this article is currently of no help to anyone.  Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Aeroflot as the largest airline the world has ever seen had, excuse my French, a shitload of destinations, and the international destinations that were served were all but a small part of the network. Almost every village in Russia had service from Aeroflot, such as Chokurdakh and Srednekolymsk, and this was throughout the 15 constituent republics of the USSR - the village didn't even need to have an airport (aircraft such as Mi-8, An-2 and An-28 don't need them. The history of Aeroflot goes back to 1923, so one would have to include every single destination in order to even begin to have an understanding of the airline's history and network. I am working from time to time on getting the article improved (off-wiki), and one of the things planned is a map of the international network and destinations previously served, however, my skills on that side of things is basically non-existent, so any pointers to where to get help there would be good; a map is a much better way to go, as it can then be included in the main Aeroflot article, rather than having a list with an arbitrary date of 1992 which doesn't tell the reader anything that wouldn't be better covered in prose within the article - such as the reasons behind the reduction in the network and the shifts of focus for the airline during the different periods of its existence. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking up one of the references I am using, using just the Antonov An-2, Aeroflot used to serve over 2,000 villages and selos throughout the USSR. Another source lists at least 12 destinations in Antarctica which Aeroflot used to serve with Ilyushin Il-76, Ilyushin Il-18, Antonov An-2, Mil Mi-8, etc. There is no chance that such a list would ever be completed, and as stated above, only once that list was complete would a reader even begin to understand the sheer size of Aeroflot and the complexity of its history. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article specifically addresses only Aeroflot-RAL (international operations), not the Aeroflot of good ole days that flew AN-2's to every forgotten village. So the domestic routes and irregular Antarctic flights are off topic. NVO (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with only international destinations being addressed, and this would go to the arbitrary date of 1992 being used, wouldn't one also have to list destinations of Центральное управление международных воздушных сообщений (ЦУМВС)? Whilst the entity that we now know as JSC Aeroflot-Russian Airlines is the legal successor to the entity that was known as Aeroflot, this same entity was born out of the operations of the ЦУМВС (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). As much as I don't believe such lists belong, other airlines don't differentiate between say Qantas Empire Airways and Qantas Airways Limited. In part of the re-write of the main article I have been working on, I have touched quite considerably on the An-2 operations, for example, did you know that villages, towns and cities in Siberia and the Far East an area the size of the continental US had no rail/road connections, and therefore they were reliant on Aeroflot and AviaArktika services with the An-2 for their very survival. Would it add anything to the article for the entire list of communities which were reliant upon these services to be drawn up? I believe it would be crufty and so much so to the point that it would lose all meaning. It's the way that I believe lists would be better served as prose within the article proper, explaining why the network has been reduced and prose describing the changes, and perhaps with the addition of a map (as shown below); in the case of Aeroflot, the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, and this was done in order to better demonstrate the direction that the company was taking; i.e. concentrating more on the domestic market (one which it was not prevalent in between 1992-2000) and less on the international market. Prose, prose, prose, in my mind would be much more preferably to lists such as these. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * in fact, the very size of the airline is a reason for having the information. WP i not paper, and having too much information is not a reason for deletion. If necessary, we can separate into domestic and international, or even divide further. The relevant policy for this objection is WP NOT PAPER. How to present the information is a qy for the talk page. Quite possibly graphics such as you mention would be a good addition to enrich the article further.DGG (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. this all looks like a reason for keeping, not deleting. How does the fact that Aeroflot is the largest airline the world has ever seen make this information unnotable? Surely it makes it even more notable that information about any smaller airline. We don't delete articles because theyt might grow too large. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Russavia-
 * First, please, be so kind to use an appropriate and correct language instead of you obscene folklore: citation (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). For those who do not speak Russian, blaahhhhhh means almost the same as fuck...
 * Second, regarding the arbitrary date of 1992 being used. As I've said earlier twice, 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier, keeping in mind 8 December 1991 when the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming (rebranding) of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 .So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. Am I correct?...
 * Third, as for the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, please, do not distort facts. Aeroflot remained always Aeroflot and changing of the name do not involve changing of its product. First domestic routes (after being converted from Soviet into Russian Airlines) were launched in 1995 to Saint Petersburg, Khabarovsk, Novosibirsk, Yakutsk, Neryungri and Novosibirsk - look here ...
 * Forth, try to be objective even if you can not. Regards, --Dimitree 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: My name is Dimitri, I'm the author of this Article. First of all, I do not consider it at all "being considered for deletion". It contains authentical information (gathered and sorted by myself), all necessary references and sources. So I don't know why it has to be deleted and I insist in keeping this Article on Wikipedia pages. Moreover, if you delete this Article, so delete all the same Articles (Terminated destinations) which exist in each Article devoted to this or that aircompany. It would be fairly... To whom Russavia the date 1992 "doesn't tell ... anything", I will explain: it is the date when Aeroflot became an aircompany of Russian Federation, not of Soviet Union. I hope now it tells a bit the reader... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Dimitri. It's nice to see the references and sources. I think all the other airline destination pages have terminated destinations in separate sections of the page, e.g. Asiana Airlines destinations. If you add the date when the service was terminated that would be even better. Juzhong (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations, as you can see, IS in a separate page (if it is the only remark). As for dates. Almost all of them are indicated in references and sources. So I do not think it is necessary to post a date to each terminated destination. Moreover, you will not find such a detalization at any other similar page devoted to an airline terminated destinations... So if it is so necessary to someone to delete it, let's also delete all the others similar pages, ok? If Aeroflot (the world's biggest carrier at its time) does not merit such a privilege, what else does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't any similar pages. All the other airlines have terminated destinations and current destinations on the same page. Juzhong (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dmitry, in regards to terminated destinations of other airlines, I would support them being removed as well, because they are simply WP:CRUFT. The problem with 99.99% of the destination articles (which are on very thin ice going by past AfDs) is that they provide no context, they are not sourced (there are many which are still unsourced after I placed unref tags on them over 12 months ago -- yet people still keep adding and deleting to them), most of those which are sourced are not done within the confines of WP:V (I fail to see what "Reference: Airline website" adds, why not simply give a link to the website in the main article for such things). One editor has approached the destinations with maps, e.g. File:Easyjetdestinations.png. I would also refer to previous AfDs for such articles, such as Articles_for_deletion/Previous_United_Airlines_destinations. I also recall similar articles for others such as JAT Airways and Delta Air Lines also being deleted, but I can't find those AfDs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be used as a reason to keep or delete, each article has to stand on its own merits, but in previous discussions, it has been considered that these articles should be deleted. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Juzhong: As I said earlier, if the question of the union of pages is the only one, let's unit both articles. No problem: let's unit these two Articles (Actual destinations and Terminated). Or let's delete ALL SIMILAR ARTICLES OF ALL AIR COMPANIES, including Delta, United, British Airways, BMI and all the rest. According to you, these Articles are "indiscriminate and useless" (as Boffob and other say). I would like to underline: it is history and no one can escape it or change it. But if someone (very distanced from aviation) thinks it is useless, let him do not read it. Let's delete all historical articles because they have no anything in commun with reality we live in. Useless facts, names, dates, destinations and so on --89.178.19.152 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Russavia: Would you please indicate what exactly articles of this kind are unsourced? What exactly articles have no external links? And if people, as you say, "still keep adding and deleting to them", so there is a need! Please, be objective: everything has its history even if it (history) is not ok for someone. Neither you nor I can decide what to do with history. And, please, privately, speak Russian with me - you can do as good as you do in English. Regs, --Dimitree 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)


 * Delete, totally useless and boring. What next, a list called "Qantas - destinations never flown to"? Martintg (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Martintg: Really? Totally useless? And how did you decide? Any arguments? Aeroflot operated flights to Australia (where you live now) and Qantas never did the same to Russia, for example. Just have a look around the site and you will find hundreds of articles of such kind. As for Qantas, you are able to do whatever you want with it, even delete (it's up to you), but be polite and politically correct, at least, while speaking to an open audience... Regs, --89.178.16.178 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most wikipedians don't have time to read these discussions before they vote, they just use insults like useless and boring. There's no point trying to talk to them. Juzhong (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Juzhong: so what for this spectacle is playing? I wonder how agressive are those who live in GB and other English speaking countries. It seems I insult them by creating this Article. Morover, I've maiden the same (created the Article "Aeroflot Destinations") in 4 other European langueges, but only here, in English Wikipedia, I met such a reaction. Especially hypocritically sound all their insults commented with "cheers" and "smiles". Fancy! --Dimitree 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding "not reading", I think it just got too big. When it was smaller, wikipedia probably had a few deletion discussions and everyone who participated had time to follow them. Now there are so many of them that people just take a quick at the article and vote based on their first impression, it's just quicker that way. Juzhong (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep: every airline article on Wikipedia has a section called Terminated destinations. For Aeroflot the list of terminated destinations is too long to fit into a section. That is why the original author put it in a separate list. The article (and its title) can certainly be improved, but statements like "boring", "indiscriminate", "useless" are all POV and should not be offered as a serious argument for deletion. --Zlerman (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not and indiscriminate collection of data. --Pan Miacek (t) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep! I DO ASK NOT TO DELETE SOURCES AND REFERENCES (EXTERNAL LINKS). OTHERWISE THIS "VOTING" IS GOING FAR BENIND A FAIR GAME! Thank you! --Dimitree 00:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you only get one vote. - Biruitorul Talk 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with this opinion "Neither indiscriminate nor useless." Former routes and destination are part of the history of every airline company, especially one of the world-largest airliner as Aeroflot was at that time. Definitely keep and make it more accurate and complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolip (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * — Tolip (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another seeming sockpuppet. Really, do try to win this on the merits, if you can. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per redundant. The list is already written as a section in Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations. It's better to redirect to that section. Dekisugi (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - the Aeroflot article can provide an adequate summary of destinations, but this exhaustive list is indeed useless and boring, and serves no particular purpose. The minutiae of a company's business practices are beyond our scope. - Biruitorul Talk 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Biruitorul
 * Would you be so kind to give, at least, one objective reason for deleting? Let me kindly inform you: there are HUNDREDS of Articles (Sections) dedicated to Terminated Destinations of EACH air company, presented on Wikipedia pages. So, according to your logics, next should be, for example, the section "Destinations" from the page of "TAROM - Compania Natională de Transporturi Aeriene Române"? Multsumesk! --Dimitree 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
 * Don't bring ethnicity into this - that's considered a personal attack. But yes, if TAROM destinations (as opposed to just the section) were nominated for deletion, I'd gladly support. It's equally boring and useless, equally capable of being folded into the main article, equally trivial, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible keep Unless there are NO ANY OBJECTIVE REASONS (let's miss appreciative epithets like indiscriminate, useless, borring and others), Article "Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations" MUST exist at least as a Section of the main article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations... --Dimitree 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter how many times you vote, you still get only one vote. A list being indiscriminate is a perfectly valid reason for deleting it. And you are not to tell us what we "MUST" have - we are under no obligation to have any particular article, even the one on Aeroflot itself. - Biruitorul Talk 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is encyclopedic information about an airline that would be too much to put in the airline article. It needs expansion, not deletion. The fact that many destinations are "no longer serviced" is irrelevant. Any half-way decent encyclopedia covers history. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of history. To me this is legitimate history. A random list of places the airline happened to fly during one decade - not so much. - Biruitorul Talk 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it depends on YOUR vision of history, pay attention to this Notability. May be it would update your vision of present?
 * Comment 2 Biruitorul
 * First, would you please citate my "bringing ethnicity into this"? If I know to thank someone in his native language - it is considered a personal attack? Fancy! You should better rebuke others, for example,Russavia who uses a foul language (in English transliteration). And "I'm not to tell" you what you MUST have. Citate me, please, without distorting facts (as it happens here: first - deleting of sources, second - voting for deletion). And saying "we are", you mean whom? Yourself?
 * No, the whole business about "well, you're Romanian, so of course you'd like to keep the Tarom list" is silly and unnecessary. "We" is the Wikipedia community - we can have any articles we please.
 * Any article you please? With no limits? So, what are we talking about? I like my article. Me means we - Wiki community. It is ok? --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we can have any articles we please, or we can delete any we please: clearer? No, it's not OK: this process was decided upon by the community, and you do not have the power to override its will; similarly, the fact that no article must exist is also the product of community consensus.
 * Second, you say, citation - "A random list of places the airline happened to fly during one decade - not so much" - end of citation. So do you mean saying "random"? It is official network of one of the world's biggest airline. Why it is random? Please, see references and sources. And "not so much" mean what? If I place here ALL NETWORK of Soviet Aeroflot (1923-1992) it takes TOO MUCH SPACE, bieleve me: 102 countries and 133 destinations on six continents, including Antarctica. But in question is Aeroflot - Russian Airlines, not Soviet. Feel the difference...
 * Random bits of trivia don't really enrich the project.
 * Really? Don't enreach? Eliminate, please, all the same articles for "enreaching" the project. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Third, you say, citation - "A list being indiscriminate is a perfectly valid reason for deleting it" - end of citation. I kindly ask you to explain in what consist this indiscriminate? Also, I kindly ask you to give a reason for existence of sections ("Terminated Destinations") almost on each page dedicated to each airline presented in Wiki. For others - it is ok, for Aeroflot - "A list being indiscriminate". On what criterion is based this categorical statement?
 * Resuming: being the author of the article in discussion and partially of Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations, I'd like to notice that "Terminated Destinations" of Aeroflot could be easy MERGED to a global article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations. And I wonder why this solution is also undergoing a strong rejection? Regs, --Dimitree 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
 * Well, because frankly, the thing is pretty boring - writing actual articles is so much more interesting. - Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Decide for yourself what is MUCH MORE interesting for you, not for me. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, except quite a few participants happen to be on my side. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary list. Eusebeus (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ATTENTION, PLEASE! I expected it and know I inform the others: have a look please at those who voting here -user Russavia is blocked from editing, citation from his page - "User notice: temporary 3RR block [edit] Regarding reversions [1] made on 10 December 2008 to Patriarch Alexy II of Russia, you have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) But Russavia votes for deleting of articles! Fantastic! It is a real spectacle! Applause, please :))) --Dimitree 03:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He was blocked for 2 days. The 2 days are over. Moving on...


 * I thank a lot everyone who supports me or my article! I agree on having some surplus remarks towards some of users (in reply to their insults. I'm shoked by actions of a user User:Graymornings who accused me of sockpuppetry: it is evident: even if I've written "keep" twice or thrice I've used my nick and IP. Ok, let him be as he is - accusing people without any proofs, no matter... The matter is when an editor (Scapler), pretending to be objective and competent, engages voting for deletion and DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASON for deleting of the article, but keeps posting vague (and insulting for me) definitinos like "an indiscriminate collection of information"... The matter is when NO ONE of voting for deletion replies me in a reasonnable way. They just play a puzzle: "borring", "useless", "indiscriminate" - put them together and define what you have got...

I've spent A MONTH for creating this article: collecting and sorting of information, its verification, endless dialogues with Aeroflot current route-managers, flight-attendants who served and serves all these destinations (from 1979 till now!!! - almost 30 years in Aeroflot), disputes on aviation forums - and all in vain? All for "being deleted"? Not even MERGED! While EACH OTHER aircompany, presented here, on Wiki-pages, has such a section "Terminated Destinations", merged in global article "Destinations". It is not a fair game! Really! I do not pretend to be an Aeroflot's lower, but I think that one of the world's biggest airline (and biggest in 80-th!) - flag-carrier of my Motherland - Russia, - merits to have a complete article "Destinations". Anyway, all decisions are taking here through a "voting", so the only thing for me is to wait for results of this "voting"... Thanx for your time and best regards, --Dimitree 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material: see WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS. Yet a further reason to delete.


 * Comment 2 Biruitorul As you can see, conversation (anyhow you call it), is not indicated in text of the article. And of course, conversation can not be considered as a "further reason to delete". Be objective. Try. Or imitate, at least.

P.S.: I'd like to mention that NOWHERE EXCEPT ENGLISH-SPEAKING WIKIPEDIA I was attacked in a such way. I've created similar articles in five European languages I fluently speak. And only here I met such a "cordial welcome". I regeret it, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have higher standards here. Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Biruitorul As I've already asked you above, be so kind to explain me, saying "we are", "we have" and so on, you mean WHOM? Yourself? Try to take care of yourself not of "us". And now I ask you using your terminology: "do not bring ethnicity into this" while comparing English-Wiki to other European Wiki-pages: French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. According to you, these Wikis have lower standards, haven't they? Would you please indicate me these "higher standards"? To use obscene language and being bloked from editing for violating rules and engaging in editorial wars like User:Russavia? To accuse me of sockpuppetry without any proofs like User:Graymornings? To delete references from the article and nominate it for deleting like User:Scapler? To post "borring" and "indiscriminate", "useless" taking them for criteria like you, User:Biruitorul? It is dicrimination, my friend! To your displeasure, I was thanked there (in Roman-speaking Wikis) and my articles are only being improved by other editors. And finally, please, cease to invent irrelevant pretexts for deleting. Do not make yourself an object to laugh at (even having "a higher standard" then all others)... Regs, --Dimitree 13:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We, en.wiki, have higher standards. Example: de:Willy Brandt just appeared on the Main Page of de.wiki; it's a Good Article with just 10 footnotes and reams of uncited text, something you'd never see here. You don't seem to get that Russavia's block ended a week ago, and that Scapler was well within his rights in nominating for deletion. Claims of "discrimination" are really rather daft in this instance. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Scapler, Boffob and Russavia, unless of course the full list of 2,000+ destination can be entered into the article. Juzhong has suggested to merge with Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations. If Demitree is serious about keeping the info, and this is not a personal ego dispute, he/she would have taken right away that opportunity and merged into the other article. The share fact that this discussion can not be concluded quickly points out to interest in continuing it rather interest in having the info on WP. Persoanlly, I am an anti-deletionist (of info from WP), even in cases when it is poorly referenced. But there is one thing to add info to improve an article, and a totally different thing to add super-narrowly focussed articles (what next, Aeroflot-Russian airlines reinstated previously terminated destinations, or List of WWII spots to/from where aircraft has flown, or List of gates used by United Airlines, or List of gates no longer used by United Airlines, or List of shelves no longer used to store milk in my refrigirator ? :) ) and pretend that this dispute is about content and not about ego. Dc76\talk 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry, but where did you find this figure "2,000+ destinations"? Do not distort facts, please! In its peack (mid 80-th) Aeroflot flew to 102 countries (133 destinations) and this was actual until 1992... --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material Do you think that the words of the witnesses don't mean anything (for example in court trial)? I'm former Aeroflot pilot, who actually served those routes (shown in the article under question) in the past. Do you consider that my words as a witness worth nothing? Don't you think that most articles in any kind of encyclopedia are based on the words of witnesses and participants of those events and facts the articles talk about? ''You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dimitree. Thank you.'' And my question is: Do you really cannot see (by checking my IP address) that I'm writing from different country (than user nicknamed 'Dimitree')??? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tolip" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolip (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question to the user, who wrote this:
 * I got this message:


 * Comment - Regarding seeing the differences between your IP and Dimitri's IP, editors on Wikipedia (for purposes of privacy) cannot see the IP address of either user. Also, in regards to your comments during the deletion debate, your witness in court would of course be valid, unless of course its hearsay, as reporting what any other personnel of Aeroflot would be. Also, here we have our own set of laws. No original research states that editors are forbidden "from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources". So, Dimitri's interviews are not admissible in court OR on Wikipedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * REMARK: You say, citation - "editors on Wikipedia (for purposes of privacy) cannot see the IP address of either user". Ok, no problem, EDITORS CANNOT SEE. BUT! As practise shows, EDITORS CAN ACCUSE WITHOUT ANY PROOFS OTHER USER OF SOCKPUPPETRY. And that was comitted by Graymorning. And it is still ok! So, what are you talkimg here about? What are you voting for? What are you supporting? My honest eagerness to keep (or merge) MY OWN article or unworthy and mean actions of Graymorning? Nothing personal, really... --Dimitree 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
 * It's perfectly valid to make an accusation without hard proof: not for nothing does WP:RCU exist. Indeed you may find yourself there rather quickly. - Biruitorul Talk 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete We appear here to be assembling a list of terminated destinations from a series of news reports, primary sources. That is a bad sign.  So is the fact that the subject "destination no longer served by Aeroflot" is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate.  Finally there is the issue of how many times Aeroflot actually had to land somewhere for it to be considered a destination.  A lot of these would have been scheduled for political as much as commercial reasons. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * Would you please explain me what kind source for an article is suitable? Have you seen SIMILAR ARTICLES of any other airline? Have you seen THEIR SOURCES? Have a look just to be a bit more competent.
 * According to you, citation - the subject "destination no longer served by Aeroflot" is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate - end of citation. So let's follow your logics and what do we have? We have the subject "destination no longer served by United/Qantas/British Airways/BMI/Alitalia/Air France/Varig/Lufthansa/Cathay Pacific......." is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate and have to be deleted. But they exist! Paradox or double standards?
 * You say, citation - a lot of these would have been scheduled for political as much as commercial reasons - end of citation. You are right, but if you speak about Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines. But this airline was abolished on 28 of July 1992 and since that date we have Aeroflot - Russian Airlines which terminated destinations are disputing here. I've already said to User:Russavia regarding his the arbitrary date of 1992 being used... 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier (8 December 1991 the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming/rebranding of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 . So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. And exactly THIS NETWORK (freed from Communist Party politics and Soviet presence all over the world) I've presented here. If you want you can easy follow the dynamics of reduction of Aeroflot - Russian Airlines network since 1992 till 2004 ... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * News reports are not primary sources, although admittedly Dmitri has been using some primary sources, which is a problem. The subject is "destinations once served by Aeroflot", since wikipedia is not a news service these are just as notable as current destinations. I don't see why scheduled flights for political reasons are less encylopedic than commercial flights, quite the reverse. Juzhong (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've followed the arguments, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete the information. It's not information I plan to use and there are issues of sourcing, maintenance, and verifiability, but a strong case has been made that route history is notable and should be included in some form. How to format it, whether to trim it, and (hopefully) merge it to a more useful combination article can be done after the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * TO ALL VOTING FOR DELETION AND NOT FOR MERGING (KEEPING): WHY ALL OTHER ARTICLES DEDICATED TO OTHER AIRLINES HAVE SUCH A SECTION/PAGE 'TERMINATED DESTINATIONS' AND Aeroflot DOES NOT MERIT IT? LOOK:, , ,

, , , , endless list... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with DGG. Here in US we don't know much about Eastern-European airliners. This article can be another good source to fill up the gaps. Definitely keep and try to make info more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Livetofly (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * — Livetofly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul Talk 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I very much suspect this could be a sockpuppet of Dimitree, given that the editor has made only one contribution, is called "Livetofly", and has imperfect English despite a claim to be from the US. Also, the user is implying Americans are ignorant, something Dimitree has explicitly said before. - Biruitorul Talk 04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added both Livetofly and Tolip to Dimitree's sock page. Any other single-purpose accounts that seem to exist solely to support Dimitree's viewpoint should be reported on that page.  Graymornings (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to keep. I now agree that the article serves a useful purpose, and should be kept. Needs more sources, but I'm sure we can find them. Other airliners have lists of terminated destinations; this one is just too big to go in the main article.  Graymornings (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2008 (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.