Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian Airlines International 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

List of Canadian Airlines International destinations

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This one seems like a page that is unverified and unverifiable. There are no refs on the page (since 2007) and it is hard to imagine a ref that would show a list of airports a defunct airline flew to "during the 1980s and 1990s until its demise" as claimed in the lede. Which to me makes no sense anyway.

I can believe that there may be sources of destinations at certain points in time. I think there is going to be a level of WP:OR required to produce a list of destinations spanning 30 years, but even if it is acceptable there needs to be more than assertions to reference it. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. If I understand this nomination correctly, the nominator is stating that the reason for deletion is that there are not, and can not ever be, any reliable sources for any of the locations listed on this page.   This page shows Canadian Airlines International timetables from 1987 to 2000 that reliably list destinations for the airline.  I'm sure there are more timetables out there, it's something people like to collect and share.   The other portion of the deletion nomination are copyediting suggestions.   So I'm not seeing any valid reasons to delete the article.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no references on the page and have not been since 2007. Producing a list of destinations collating information from timetables would synthesis of information. Knowing that paper timetables exist also does not help with the lack of verifiable information on the page if nobody uses them to reference it. JMWt (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that an airline timetable is not a reliable source as to whether an airline flies to a particular destination? RecycledPixels (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that a paper timetable is only of use here if it is actually used to write the information on the page. Also as the timetables only show the routes at a given point of time, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR would be necessary to write a properly referenced page in its current form. JMWt (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey JMWt, I see some abondoned routes so not only one point in time. gidonb (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The airline is no longer flying, so they are all abandoned routes. If there was, for example, a timetable showing routes in 1985, that does obviously not show routes in 1999. So there would need to be sourcing from a number of dates to produce this WP page. And, as far as we can tell, there is no indication that any timetables have been used anyway because there are no references on the page and thus the information is entirely unverified. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that? This article is a list of destinations that the airline flew during its history.  It's not a history of destinations in 1985, 1988, or 1999, and there is no assertion that the airline flew continuously to any of the destinations on this list.  The only such assertions are those like Hong Kong, which seems reasonable to say that the airline stopped flying to Kai Tak Airport after it was closed and operations were moved to Chek Lap Kok International Airport so the reader isn't confused and think that the airline was flying to both destinations at the same time.  I'm still not seeing a reason to delete this.  RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's a bunch of unverified assertions that are not referenced. It literally states things as fact that have no inline references whatsoever. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Your original nomination statement said that the information contained in the article was unverified and unverifiable.   I've suggested just one potential easily-obtained source of information in an attempt to demonstrate that the information is, in fact, verifiable.  Its current state of poor sourcing, copyediting are reasons to improve the article, or, if needed, tag it for improvement, per suggestions at the Deletion is not cleanup essay.  RecycledPixels (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to stop now because it seems like we are talking past each other. If you have an easily-obtained source of information which encompasses all of the content of the page, I invite you to add it as a reference. JMWt (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Canadian Airlines International until a point reliable sources can be found. Ajf773 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The table does need some work in terms of referencing, and it is also overlinked. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any IS RS that show this meets LISTN?  // Timothy :: talk  16:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – completely unsourced and unneeded, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTAGUIDE —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced list for a defunct airline. I don't find any sources and timetables (if they exist) would be primary sources. Odd piece of Canadian trivia perhaps, but nothing we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a primary source here. Per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."   That's all the timetable is being used for.   Nobody's trying to make any interpretations of the data, such as location X must have been the airline's most profitable route because it had the most daily flights, or something like that.  Defunct airline means nothing.  Pan Am is a defunct airline, yet we still have List of Pan Am destinations.  "Unsourced" is a temporary condition.  Reliable sources exist, as I pointed out above.  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - also keep per prior AFD results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations, which I only just noticed when I linked to the Pan Am Destinations article above. In particular, the comments by  in that discussion.  RecycledPixels (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Canadian Airlines International: redirects are WP:CHEAP and this would preserve the page history better than deletion. Once reliable sources are found, the article can be recreated. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – Listcruft, unsourced and trivial (defunct airline schedules are not an encyclopedic topic), WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTAGUIDE. Any sources that could would be primary and not establish notability. Fails LISTN, no evidence this has been discussed as a group by IS RS. At best this is an unsourced and completely unneeded FORK.  // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this piece of utterly useless information about a defunct airline's destinations. We need forks like this in Wikipedia as much as we need grenades in our kitchen. This notion that Wikipedia can be some kind of a collection of randomly selected information has been defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2023 (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.