Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline 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 snowball keep. (If anyone can write a script to remove the AfD templates and put Old AfD multi onto their talk pages, that'll be appreciated.) Deryck C. 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations
Per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTRAVEL – These seem far more about being a flight booker or guidebook than useful encyclopedic articles. Additionally, there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these. Other ones are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this. Overall, these are almost all unsuitable for the site. Mdann52 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Have existed for years based on wide participant consensus. One (still ongoing) discussion doesn't change that. Presumptive and premature, while the broader question of the nature of Wikipedia's coverage of aiviation is still being discussed. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fancy linking me to the discussion showing widespread consensus for these page? Mdann52 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all these all provide useful information in greater detail than would normally be appropriate in the airlines' main articles, but still is encyclopedic and informative and in scope of inclusion. Aude (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all Useful information to have and are generally too long to be in the airline's main article. VG31-irl 19:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Destinations are a notable aspect of an airline, but should not bloat an article unnecessarily (see WP:IINFO, point 3) and consequently these articles are appropriate Summary style sub-articles of the main article for the associated airlines. Destinations served is of comparable notability to the following stand-alone list articles "List of active [country] military aircraft", "List of [aircraft] operators", and "List of [award/prize/honor] recipients". The airline destination lists complement the airlines & destinations lists in airport articles. If there are issues with some airline destination articles, such as too short of a list that could be merged into the airline article, they should be dealt with individually.
 * These articles do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:IINFO, provided that the list is introduced with information for context. These articles are not indiscriminate as they cover all destinations, past and present, and have a narrow scope that is notable. The nom mentions that some "are several years out of date, which is counter-intuitive for pages like this." It would only be counter-intuitive if the articles only listed current destinations, but the articles list both past and current destinations; being out of date is not an argument for deletion (see WP:OUTDATED) and whether a destination is a current or former destination is a minor difference. The only way an out-of-date article would be counter-intuitive would be if these articles were travel guides, but they're not! Due to extensive codeshare agreements in the airline industry, most airlines sell tickets to many more destinations than they serve with their aircraft (airline destination lists do not include codeshare destinations, they only include destinations the airline serves with their aircraft). For travel purposes, more information is needed than just destinations, mainly the origin & destination, frequency of flights (1/week vs. 4/day), and other factors such as freedoms of the air & cabotage. For example, because of US cabotage laws/regulations, a Canadian airline can't sell a ticket from New York to Chicago with a layover in Toronto ; travelers would have to buy separate tickets for each leg or book with a US carrier (eg. book a United flight and fly NY-Toronto on Air Canada as a codeshare flight then Toronto-Chicago on United). The bottom line is that while the list may be helpful in some circumstances, they are a poor source of information for travelers in most circumstances. The nom says "there appears to be quite a bit of unsourced or WP:CRYSTAL material in some of these." Among the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is WP:MUST. Since destinations are readily verifiable, deletion on unsourced grounds is not appropriate and the articles should be tagged with the appropriate cleanup templates. Finally, I don't understand how WP:CRYSTAL applies to these articles? Since WP:CRYSTAL concerns future events, it would seem that this is a reference to future destinations. However, there is a lot of logistics behind airline schedules and new routes/destinations are, in almost all cases, announced with a specific start date and less than a year before their launch. These schedules are unlikely to change. Including future destinations is akin to including the dates of future events, eg. 2020 Summer Olympics (24 July-9 August) or Super Bowl 50 (7 February 2016). AHeneen (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With IINFO, I was more referring to the overall point of As explained...above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AS for the CYRSTAL point, a lot of these have unsourced claims to future flights, some of which I could not easily source (other were easily sourced, but bear in mind it is the responsibility of the user adding the information to source it). I would also argue there isn't enough context here - as you've said, the routes that airlines can serve vary, so maybe that should be included to make sure there is enough context? I'm not making the final decision here, just throwing my opinions out. Mdann52 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Your nominated reason is irrational. Why not nominate in other languages?--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Would you agree if tomorrow I nominate the entire project for deletion just because I don't like it?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All All are well within project guidelines and are supported by various projects. Irrational nomination! &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I always felt they were unnecessary at first, initially they used to be mentioned as prose in main article in most cases some times just by region not country or city i.e ABC airline flies to so many points in North America, Caribbean Middle East and so on, but now they are an integral part of the project and need to remain, the only negative is that many go neglected for years because they are not popular airlines, and theres the issue of unreferenced content.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor is so new what made him start this deletion thing? his talk page has almost nothing plus some critiques of his actions related to other things Mustangmanxxx (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we split this up please? There's Trade-Air destinations which makes no sense without Trade-Air; Dubrovnik Airline which isn't necessarily referenced to reliable sources. The nomination was worthwhile insofar as me noticing this, but if it gets closed as snow-keep we'll gloss over these individual issues. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should be split up into bite sized bundles in the off chance there is something worth keeping. If it is 'all or nothing' I say Delete them all per WP:NOT and WP:NLIST since the individual components of these lists are not, in and of themselves, notable per WP:GNG or any other specific criteria I can think of nor is there anything notable about any particular airline's routs as a group unless there is discussion in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I guess I can throw out WP:NOTINHERITED as well since just because an airline is notable does not mean the fact it flies from East-nowhere to Brigadoon is. This will be an interesting exercise in the idea that AfDs are closed on policy arguments alone. I see a lot of keeps, enough that unless a lot of other people comment that 'no consensus/keep' would be an easy close, but not one good policy based argument to keep has been made.  J bh  Talk  15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep All No compelling reason to delete all these articles and very useful for cross-referencing. Pmbma (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep these are all sub-article of the related airline that have grown to be to large for the parent, so they are not unlike similar child-articles and provide supportive information on the size and scope of the airlines operations. MilborneOne (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep All Are you kidding? This is meant to reflect the history of airlines, removing this would cause chaos. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. These are very useful listings.--RioHondo (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (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.