Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air India Express 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   delete and merge. The information included fails WP:NOT, and I know you will demand an explanation as to why. Here it is: The information is not comparable to List of programs broadcast by CBS, as List of programs broadcast by CBS includes information on past programs, future programs, and current programs, and a rational discourse of which programs are likely to be included in the future. In its current state, however, Air India Express destinations lists a copy of the information at the airlines website. It does not concern itself with possible future destinations, nor any past destinations, nor does it discuss the destinations or explain them in any way. There is no leading paragraph, as WP:SAL advises. Current consensus would change, I think, if this article reached the standard of other hierarchical lists, such as List of basic geography topics. As a final note, I have taken Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations into account, but given the age of that AfD and the fact that it was not unanimous, and given the arguments below, consensus, and policy, have changed. A good start to merging this article would be to simply take the information provided, and compress it into a paragraph or two, as has been done at this page. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Air India Express destinations

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

Wholly unencyclopedic information best suited to the company's own website--where it in fact can be found. Among other defects (such as the fact that nobody would look for this information in an encyclopedia and that it's fundamentally advertising), this information is subject to frequent change. Bongo matic  13:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wiki is not a directory--Boffob (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (or possibly full merge with the airline). We have had discussions on articles like this before, twice actually, see Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations. Simply put: an airline specializes in flying people from point A to point B. We cannot have truly comprehensive coverage of an airline unless we include where these destinations are, in the airline market, where an airline flies is not something which is "not notable". Generally, these lists have been placed as separate articles because of size; the Air India Express case has about 30 destinations which is not overwhelmingly large and could fit in the mainline article, but a separate article is fine as well. In any case, this information is valid, easily verifiable from an airline website, and fully relevant as a way of describing the geography, business, and extent of the airline company. Also, the statement that "nobody would look for this information in an encyclopedia" is false, take a look at readership statistics. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: we could turn Wikipedia into a phonebook, and it would get many hits I'm sure (usually, if there's a Wiki article about something, it's among the first hits in a google search), and it would be useful. But it's a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR. Yet you are right, apparently the community thinks keeping such lists is part of the Wiki mandate...--Boffob (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, trying to draw a parallel between a list of a few dozen entries, and a enormous phone directory of several thousand, is a straw man argument, which I will not spend any time refuting. I'll just say that phone books are not for Wikipedia, and that these destination lists are not phone books. Second, I cannot see how this is a violation of NOTDIR at all. The points listed in that policy are (1) "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", I have argued above for why these lists are relevant in the coverage and not loosely associated. When tied to a particular airline, they are strongly associated. (2) "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries." Each of the entries on the list are notable on their own, indeed each of the airports have separate articles as they should do. In fact, this list has a useful navigational function. (3) "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" These lists are not airline schedules. An airline would find it rather useless to just say where they fly if they don't say when they fly. Airline schedules however, are beyond the domain of Wikipedia. The proper analogy is that we have an article on List of programs broadcast by CBS, while we don't have an article on the CBS programming schedule for tomorrow. (4) "Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." These lists make no attempt at giving the ticket prices to various airport, nor should they. (5) "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". Not an issue here, there is only one criteria, whether this airline flies there or not. An inappropriate list would be along the lines of "List of destinations served by Air India Express and Jet Airways". Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not here to argue with you, but that List of programs broadcast by CBS does have the current schedule (with a little caveat to avoid updating it daily)...--Boffob (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would vote to delete that one too. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A general statement of the areas an airline serves (in its article) should be enough, and a link to the airline's site so exact up-to-date information can be found. What if a person relied on out-of-date WP info for making his or her travel plans? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - A person relying out out of date WP info to make travel plans wouldn't get very far. Suppose that Midwest Airlines destinations still listed San Diego International Airport, which Midwest recently stopped flying to. They would only be misled until they attempted to book a ticket to/from San Diego on Midwest and which point they would fail because nobody would sell them one. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then better send them to the airline's site in the first place and save them some time and trouble. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Standard destinations article used to declutter the airline article one of 279 similar articles in Category:Airline destinations. Suggest you cant consider one without the other 278. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I think the whole series of articles should be deleted. Airline destinations are liable to change at any time and without notice.  Airline articles should not have an associated list, but should have an external link to a webiste, which the airline can be expected to maintain.  This should prevent WP being cluttered with out of date (and historically insignificant) information.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This application of common sense to suggest a sensible and workable solution is so out of place that it seems almost inappropriate for an AfD discussion. Bongo  matic  07:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:58, 15 November 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.