Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations (2nd nomination)
- 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a renomination, the previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive.
Briefly, this utterly fails WP:N. The vast majority of keep arguments in the last nomination were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL, not ones based on policy. A list of major stops can be included at the main article, but an article like this is so crufty as to be almost amusing. WP:NOT covers not an indiscriminate collection of information, and frankly, our policy on common sense seems pretty relevent here as well. -Mask? 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki I think this kind of content is more appropriate to another wiki, such as Wikitravel. Slavlin 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely unmaintainable and not the sort of thing anyone would want to look up in WP anyway. andy 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is easily maintainable if you have the will to do it, and say that no one would look it up is a complete generalization. NcSchu 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major hubs and landing slots are an important part of any airline. Airlines are bought just to get their hubs and landing slots. Also this is a major consideration in the article on Open Skies. Destinations don't change as often as you would think. There are only so many landing slots available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We've already had this discussion - nothing has changed here. Wikitravel does not cover airlines let alone their destinations - this has been discussed there before as well. --Flymeoutofhere 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You just told us why we dont send them to wikitravel, now why should we keep them here? You never got to that part. -Mask? 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These lists are important aspects of airlines and cannot be included in the main articles because of clutter. They should remain. Zeus1234 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, we have had this discussion before, a few times, and it's never been satisfactorily explained why all these articles don't fail WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#IINFO. EliminatorJR Talk 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the burden of proof is on the nominator, and there has been no satisfactory argument as to why they do fail those guidelines. DB (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They help to measure the size and scope of the airline, exist as sub-articles to reduce clutter on the main airline article.MilborneOne 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree; perhaps the information need not be included anywhere. GracenotesT § 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this nomination (and I believe it came up before but I don't have the time to reread the whole previous AfD right now) is that it's unclear whether the articles are being seen as standalone lists or as sub-pages of the main airline article. If they're being seen as standalone lists then I can see why people would want to delete them, but merging them back into the main article article makes the main article too long for many of these airlines. If the objection is to maintaining these lists at all regardless of where they reside, and decision is to dump them, then we'll need to update the article structure guidelines at WP:AIRLINES since the destination list is part of that structure. -- Hawaiian717 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an important distinction. I personally see the articles as subpages (since I read the AFD a while ago); a good solution might be to only merge information into the main airline article that establishes the airline's notability. There also may be merit to the idea of including the list in an airline's main article in a far condensed form than it is now, although such a solution may be as crufty (a subjective assessment) as these articles. GracenotesT § 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this nomination (and I believe it came up before but I don't have the time to reread the whole previous AfD right now) is that it's unclear whether the articles are being seen as standalone lists or as sub-pages of the main airline article. If they're being seen as standalone lists then I can see why people would want to delete them, but merging them back into the main article article makes the main article too long for many of these airlines. If the objection is to maintaining these lists at all regardless of where they reside, and decision is to dump them, then we'll need to update the article structure guidelines at WP:AIRLINES since the destination list is part of that structure. -- Hawaiian717 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree; perhaps the information need not be included anywhere. GracenotesT § 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' "Encyclopedias [can] provide raw information rather than prose to a certain extent, but this is too much. I wouldn't say that it's indiscriminate, since the criterion for inclusion is clearly defined (in theory), but I could certainly say that this criterion makes accurate maintenance a Herculean task." - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports. (Note also the paragraph on GFDL compliant-copying.) GracenotesT § 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a real pain to see this yet again... Delete per WP:NOT concerns (directory etc). This information (and airport airline lists) distracts editors from actual content which would be of great interest — important and notable destinations, why they are of note. These lists just duplicate the airline's websites, published timetables and other external sites. Thanks/wangi 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP...this is rediculous. We already had a huge discussion on this and this is a waste of time? The consensus last time was overwelmingly Keep and I don't know what people don't get about that Sox23 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to respond to everyone (sorry; I don't want to be too pushy), but I should note that consensus can change. Perhaps it has. GracenotesT § 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although I agree with the keep 'voters' this is getting repetitive. If this nomination fails, I would suggest a policy change is required instead of another nomination. Personally, I would prefer a clear statement in our policies that all content has to have a secondary source and that any article lacking this requirement can be challenged and deleted. Addhoc 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote on secondary sources from previous AFD:
Michael Greiner 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]the information is actually verifiable by third party sources. OAG publishes a list of every route served by every airline in the world. As we mentioned before, simplying copying that list would be excessive, however, the OAG lists can easily be used to compile a destination list for each airline. DB (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Quote on secondary sources from previous AFD:
- Yup that's a third party source, However I said a secondary source, which is different. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V isn't the problem here. EliminatorJR Talk 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the sense the current version WP:V can't be enacted to delete this article, I agree. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does one request that this nomination in its totality be stricken from the record until such time as the nominee has time to go thru and check each article individually. I point your attention to this article. It is obvious the nominee has not looked at any of the articles up for nomination and as such the entire nomination should be scratched. --Russavia 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure how to bring this up delicately, but I'll also point you to the red links in the nomination, as well as Hawaiian Airlines. It's obvious to me that he just cut and pasted the last one. -- Hawaiian717 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add City Star Airlines destinations to the list. Why exactly is this article being nominated? And the other articles Hawaiian717 has mentioned? --Russavia 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They should be deleted from the nomination and sent to RfD. To be fair to the nom, the point here is that the main issue is debated properly (which it wasn't last time) and it seems a bit over the top to have to look at 150+ articles again. If the outcome is delete, the deleting admin will easily be able to see which articles have been either deleted already or redirected. EliminatorJR Talk 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add City Star Airlines destinations to the list. Why exactly is this article being nominated? And the other articles Hawaiian717 has mentioned? --Russavia 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure how to bring this up delicately, but I'll also point you to the red links in the nomination, as well as Hawaiian Airlines. It's obvious to me that he just cut and pasted the last one. -- Hawaiian717 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for nom WP:CRUFT is not policy or a guideline, just an essay. Same thing for WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. --Michael Greiner 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's lucky the nom based the nomination on WP:N and WP:NOT then, which ARE policy. EliminatorJR Talk 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These sections are clearly maintainable - how would they have grown to the extent that they have if they were not.
- Furthermore, organizationally speaking it would be a disaster to integrate this information into the main body of a respective airline's entry. It seems that a majority of the comments are in support of retaining the information, and if we want to do that the only manageable way to display it is to have a separate entry as is right now. Perhaps there should be additional information on the most important aspects of the destinations topic (Hubs, international destinations, et al) in the main article in supplement . See Continental Airlines for an example of this. -- grimbogey 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My original request on the January nomination was "Keep" due to some of the reasons presented here. However I now believe that such information is pointless because airlines and other third party websites keep clear lists of destinations that are just as easily accessed by the public and are more official. Hubs are already mentioned (or at least should be) on the airlines' templates and I think perhaps all that is needed to make destination information encyclopedic would be mention of destinations that have an unusual amount of service, various firsts, etc. And of course if a certain airline has only a few destinations it is always possible to list them in a more clean paragraph form. I should add, however, that I do not believe WP:NOT can actually apply in this case, as these lists aren't exactly "indiscriminate lists" as they are relevant to the "mother" article. NcSchu 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to respectfully point out that just like WP:USEFUL isn't a valid reason to keep an article, the fact that information (ie. the compilation of information that is the article) can be found somewhere else shouldn't count as a reason to delete it. One person's pointless information, as you put it, may very well be relevant to another person. --Seed 2.0 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually most sites do a good job of identifying destinations that are available through the airline even if they are not flown by the airline itself. That is different from the destinations that an airline actually flies to which is what these lists cover. The availability of this encyclopedic information is not that available to the common public so the filtering here actually makes the actual information available rather then the marketing hype. There is a major difference between routes and destinations. I have no problem deleting specific routes since those are not encyclopedic but the actual destinations are encyclopedic since they help define the airline. Vegaswikian 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with American Airlines, and place the destination list in a section in that article. By itself, I gotta agree with the nom--an article like this borders on cruft.Blueboy96 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these articles exist because the destination section got too long relative to the article, so it was pulled out the be separate. See User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines to see what I mean. -- Hawaiian717 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that there's really no way to merge all that content into the respective airlines' articles (I'm mostly talking content here, not so much manhours even though that would be another problem). And I don't really see a way to merge just some desinations. It's pretty much either all destinations, only hubs or straight-out deletion -- Seed 2.0 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to their respective airlines and delete the lot. Maybe transwiki to Wikitravel, which it might do better at anyway considering my opinion. Note, my original vote in January was delete. I'm still not convinced that these articles can stand by themselves, but they do make interesting information (yes, I know...) and provide sort of a crossreference for airports and airlines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dedicated users keep these pages updated, making them very reliable and useful. To list where an airline flies is a very valuable piece of information, one that Wikipedia should be proud of. This was nominated once before, I don't see why it was done again. A merge would be acceptable, but many of these lists are just far too long. - Nurmsook 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the people saying "keep" seem to be arguing (a) we can't merge the information back into the relevant airline articles, and (b) we can't put it somewhere else (plus a few (c) it's easy to maintain in this form). But the question is, do we need it in the first place? AFAICT, the answer is no - these lists are exactly what Wikipedia is not, namely a collection of indiscriminate information and/or a directory. Delete. Confusing Manifestation 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per Nurmsook--Jer10 95 Talk 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just to expand on why this has been nominated again, look at the last AfD. There were 28 Keep votes. Apart from User:Sjakkalle and User:Maltara, who made good points, all the other 26 votes were based on (a) WP:USEFUL (b) WP:ILIKEIT, (c) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, (d) "They're too big to merge back into the main article", or (e) didn't give a reason or just said "per someone else". That's 26 Keep votes that didn't give a policy guideline as to why the articles should be kept.
- Comment (cont) So far in this AfD, apart from Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the same non-reasons are being given again (with added "But the last AfD said keep!!") If these articles are encyclopedic, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain exactly how they do meet WP:NOT / WP:N. EliminatorJR Talk 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, do look at the last nomination. With the exception of the nominator, SpLoT, Fram, and one or two others, all of the arguments for deletion were based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IDONTCARE, WP:PERNOM, or WP:CRUFT, which is not a policy or even a guideline. DB (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I like lists, but this is taking the idea too far. WP is not a search engine. There's no point putting it back into the articles. DGG 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Rather than start a second nom, shouldn't this be at WP:DRV? Yes, I know it was kept, but if the majority of keep arguments were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, then it could be argued that the AfD was closed improperly. A second AfD right after the first one will probably end up the same. At least at DRV, the AfD's closing, not the content will be under discussion. UnfriendlyFire 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - All of these articles need to be kept. There is no problem in keeping the information on these pages asccurate, and i think that the information on them is valid and important. If the articles were to be merged into the main airline articles, they would seem a lot more crowded and cluttered. These articles provide useful information and compliment the main articles well. I really don't see how these articles could be deleted. Greenboxed 02:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Again? Actually, these lists are rather accurate as they're are watched by countless users on all three related wikiprojects and just regular aviation users not affiliated with the projects as well, and can be easily verified as such. It was already determined in the previous nomination that they are notable in reference to each airline as they determined both airline route structure, territory and business planning. They're also sub-articles of the individual airline articles since placing this information within each individual article would be too large, so they compliment each individual airline article by keeping information to massive to be contained within one page and ARE NOT just standalone articles as is being suggested by the nominators. Sub-articles are found throughout wikipedia; alone, they may be considered unnotable information but as part of a larger group of articles they make up a large network of information useful to anyone interested in the main subject, in this case, each individual airline. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep God forbid that Wikipedia might actually contain accurate information about major airlines of use to people who want to look it up. Nick mallory 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what new information has been discovered since this last nomination?? plan on nominating over and over again until people get sick of replying? just keep it since most people think its informative. --02:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It makes all kinds of sense to keep and organize this information. Is nobody curious, when reading about Airline Z, to know where Airline Z flies to? These are content forks, split off from the main airline articles which tend to run long. By the same argument, the small airports that nobody has ever heard of might also be deleted, but that's not about to happen either. Placeholder account 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep As comment above. Bjrobinson 09:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I think this would be useful information for the users, but it should be part of the article of each respective airline. The value of this website is it's "gee whiz" factor, and listing s of where each airline flies to adds that "gee whiz" factor. WCS99no1 05:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as last time. These should be viewed as appropriately split of articles to the main airline articles. The dismissal of all the keep arguments as ILIKEIT or USEFUL is plainly insulting and false, since the main reason for keeping is that the destinations of an airline is what defines its geographical and economic outreach, and new routes are frequent topics in business journals. As a side-note, citing WP:CRUFT in the nomination is very much an IDONTLIKEIT reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am of the position that these articles (or subarticles if you prefer) serve as a way to identify where airlines go, similar to listings of train stations. I can see how some people see these lists as indiscriminate, because even subarticles need to stand on their own merit (look at "in popular culture" AFDs). Although I said "keep" in the previous discussion, I will not say anything for now, but I still lean towards "keep". And as I have said before, additional information (e.g. history of destinations) and referencing in the articles would add value here. On another note, moving the original discussion as an archive is not the normal way to raise a second discussion. (Creates headaches for admins?) But I ended up seeing this page in my watchlist, so it got my attention more than the normal way would. Tinlinkin 09:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an excellent point, and one which I totally agree with. I have seen some airline destination articles which state their past destinations but give as a list only. These destinations rewritten as text, and expanded, could be highly informative. This is something I will be doing as part of a rewrite of Aeroflot which I am working on, such great history there, the largest airline in the world with over 10,000 aircraft and thousands of destinations, to an airline today with a hundred aircraft and a hundred destinations. There is a lot of information which can be provided, and sourced of course, it could turn these destination articles into something which could also stand up on their own. --Russavia 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd actually be fine with these articles if thats what they did. Even for defunct airlines like Trans-am. This is a most interesting suggestion.... -Mask? 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see this being done and working, the only problem would be to get accurate histories of destinations (if that is what would happen). NcSchu 19:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is an excellent point, and one which I totally agree with. I have seen some airline destination articles which state their past destinations but give as a list only. These destinations rewritten as text, and expanded, could be highly informative. This is something I will be doing as part of a rewrite of Aeroflot which I am working on, such great history there, the largest airline in the world with over 10,000 aircraft and thousands of destinations, to an airline today with a hundred aircraft and a hundred destinations. There is a lot of information which can be provided, and sourced of course, it could turn these destination articles into something which could also stand up on their own. --Russavia 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per last time. This information is always updated and is actually important. Merging to main airline articles will make the main article look lengthy and messy especially for major airlines. Squeezing 200+ destinations on one page? No thanks. The last time, the result was a keep and why are we sending it to AFD again? Terence 09:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per MilborneOne. --Webkami 13:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per NcSchu the info can easily be linked from the airline articles, or even added to those, & it's seriously debatable how useful this is. (you can't plan a journey with it as you need access to the uptodate into frm the airline/travel agent, & if yr thinking of buying an airline, u probably don't work out how much it's worth/which one to buy from a wp article) ⇒ bsnowball 15:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appropriate for lists. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this information is directly, absolutely relevant to the airline articles. And yes, it can be easily maintained. Critical to an airline's definition is what destinations they serve. Specific lists of destinations, especially hub cities, are absolutely germane to airline discussions. Deleting all these pages of lists would mess up the main articles, as already mentioned, not to mention doing a disservice to the hundreds of individuals that have contributed to and maintained airline destinations lists. Enigma3542002 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment commenting above by Enigma3542002..."Critical to an airline's definition is what destinations they serve"...is 100% correct. In regards to users looking at these lists, they are able to see what areas of the world the specific airlines focus on (Southwest Airlines focuses on primary USA destinations whereas Alitalia for instance focuses on Italian destinations), as well as if they utilize main airports (typical of legacy carriers like American Airlines) or secondary airports (like some low-cost carriers like Allegiant Air). Sox23 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Can anyone explain how these do not fail WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO? Just because you think an article should stay, doesn't mean it should. Paul Cyr 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree with the nominator that many of the arguments offered above for keeping these pages are rather weak. However, in an AfD nomination, the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate why the articles should be deleted — and so far I've seen little of that beyond WP:IDONTCARE. In particular, I have failed to see any convincing arguments on how keeping these pages would be of disadvantage to Wikipedia, beyond offending the nominator's personal sensibilities.
The nominator argues that these lists violate WP:N and WP:NOT. To the former (which is only a guideline, anyway), I would reply that it is completely irrelevant whether these pages might or might not pass any arbitrary threshold of notability on their own: they are not stand-alone articles, but merely sections split off from the main airline article for technical and readability reasons (page length). The airlines, or at least the overwhelming majority of them, are presumably themselves notable enough. That being the case, the notability of the destinations is no more relevant than the the notability of individual songs in an article about a band — whether presented on a separate discography page or not.
As for "what Wikipedia is not", I presume the sections the nominator is referring to are Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the specific examples given in them actually match the pages being nominated, but presumably the nominator is referring more to the spirit of the policy than to its letter (even though that policy is in fact intended to be more of a collection of bright-line rules rather than any sort of "founding principle" to be interpreted and meditated upon). Reading the justifications given in the "directory" section, the most applicable concerns presented there seem to those of notability, for which see the preceding paragraph. As for the other section, beyond the responses already made above, I will merely note that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" and leave it at that.
Of course, marginal articles may, and commonly are, also deleted if maintaining them in a proper encyclopedic condition would seem more trouble than it's worth. Typical cases include articles likely to attract interest mainly from parties with a conflict of interest (advertisement etc.), lists that would require inordinate effort to keep sufficiently complete and/or up-to-date to be useful, and articles that simply no-one other than their creator is interested in maintaining. None of these concerns seem to apply here, though: Previous commentators have claimed — and I have no reason to disbelieve them — that these lists are in fact easily sourced and maintained based on neutral and not too rapidly changing sources. The sheer number and quality of these articles, as well as the number of people supporting their continued inclusion above, should be evidence that, even if you don't care and I don't care, someone does care about them. As for Wangi's concern that maintaining these pages "distracts editors" from more valuable tasks, do we actually have any evidence to suggest that the editors currently maintaining them are actually interested in working on other, "more valuable" content, and only limited from doing so by lack of time? In my personal experience, the contributors to such article are more likely to simply go away if the articles are deleted.
Finally, I find it ironic that the nominator would choose to appeal to use common sense in a nomination that, to me, seems to policy wonkery at it worst — nominating something for deletion merely because one doesn't like it and can't find any policy in explicit support of it, with no regard to whether it actually, directly or indirectly, harms or costs the encyclopedia anything in any way. Since they did, however, I'll use mine: if someone wants it, and it does no harm, why not keep it?
I would like to second Tinlinkin's suggestion that these articles would be much more useful if they incorporated more of a historical perspective. While Wikipedia is also an almanac (can't recall where it says that, but I've definitely seen it cited as policy before), it is primarily an encyclopedia, and one of the goals of an encyclopedia is to collect present otherwise scattered information in a meaningful context. As they are, these lists are merely crude distillations of the OAG route data, of marginal independent value and worth keeping only by default in the absence of harm. A historical perspective — even just a list of changes over the years — would add encyclopedic information that would not be trivially available elsewhere. A proper historical narrative incorporating said changes into a broader context would do so even more. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the articles do have some historic destinations lists. However with adding many of these destinations there is an issue of WP:V. I think your suggestion for a textual description of the destination history would be a nice add. In some cases, this was retained in the main article but it generally does not exist on this wiki. Vegaswikian 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fail to see, in part, why this information needs to be anywhere in Wikipedia (let alone cluttering up the main article, as some have pointed out). Some have trouble grasping that dictionary definitions should go to Wiktionary, since it's good, verifiable, useful, content. But then there is another issue, that of scope. I have cautiously drawn the conclusion that this is outside of our scope: not to be dogmatic about it, of course. GracenotesT § 01:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see any new arguments here, and since the decision last time was keep, there's no reason to overturn it. Furthermore, I support the lists; they don't violate any of the policies stated. Finally, this is not how a second nomination should be handled. The first should not have been moved. This should be at a "2nd nomination" page. DB (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - how is the list at User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines, for a compromise? I believe that sorting by locations is not important (well, unless you want a travel guide), so this simplifies the look of the list and makes it perfectly integrable into the article. The list was generated by quickly written script, which can be refined if merging is the consensus. Once again, merely a compromise. Any thoughts? GracenotesT § 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the city/country/continent names does, however, make it rather hard to obtain any meaningful geographical information from the data, at least unless one has memorized the locations of all major airports around the world. The basic idea does seem worth a try, at least. Perhaps a scrollable table, with columns for (at least) airport name and country, instead of a list? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Karonen. The table really must divide the airports by geographical information to make the list meaningful.Zeus1234 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Karonen as well. Having the list integrated in the main page by the way shown in User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines but with geographical information would tell us details about its expansion plan. This also serve as a compromise from being an article with merely a list. --Zack2007 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesitantly respectfully disagree with Karonen. :) To explain: imagine a graph inserted into an article to illustrate a trend indicated in the text. A reader may not look specifically at each data point, but say "Hey! Those two variables have an inverse relationship!" However, they can always see the graph in more detail. I'm not sure what level of detail having the location will contribute to the article. You see that a list is long; given the significantly more amount of space two columns will take up, it does not help the content that much. Or at least, I am not convinced that it will. GracenotesT § 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this decision come to deleting the articles, I would not mind integrating the lists into the articles as in User:Hawaiian717/American Airlines, however, I still do not think these articles should be up for deletion again and I believe that how the articles are set up right now is the most beneficial to users looking up airline destinations Sox23 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While this is a good idea, I also agree with Sox23 that the current lists are the best format. Having a scrollable list in the article should only happen as a last resort. Zeus1234 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the city/country/continent names does, however, make it rather hard to obtain any meaningful geographical information from the data, at least unless one has memorized the locations of all major airports around the world. The basic idea does seem worth a try, at least. Perhaps a scrollable table, with columns for (at least) airport name and country, instead of a list? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contrary to the assertion of the nom, airline destinations are a a highly discriminate collection of information with a strict boundary condition: either the airline flies to point X, or it doesn't. They're also absolutely crucial to defining the airline's operations, and it's not sensible to attempt to narrow them down to "major stops" (meaning what?). Jpatokal 17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Airline Destination information is a big part in information about the airline and it's history. It shows where the airline is spread out to, and provides valuable information. Greekboy 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is definitely useful and an integral part of the information about the airline. The airline itself definitely counts under WP:N and these lists could be on the same page, but with most airlines the list is too long - thus justifying a separate page. I - and I'm sure others - do look up this information because wikipedia is far more succinct than many airline websites when I have to navigate through numerous flash websites and onto some fancy map just to discover whether they go to place X. On my dialup collection and even on broadband I choose to come here. Keep it here and accept that it might be out of date sometimes - but that is true of the whole of Wikipedia. And that's why we're here to update it when we can. Iancaddy 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Jpatokal. matt91486 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sure doesn't look like the consensus has changed from last time...why are we even bothering? Sox23 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:CCC? I gave you a link above, but it perhaps you may not have gotten around to taking a look. I'm bothering because these lists are (in my opinion) outside of Wikipedia's scope: another line of thinking which has not generated much interest, let alone analysis. GracenotesT § 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From WP:CCC, it states "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss.". Just what new information can you offer, without which I have the gut feeling you are doing precisely what WP:CCC is discouraging?--Huaiwei 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have presented a new argument or two, but otherwise, we're still discussing the same items, which I believe are still being misinterpreted or under-examined (and need more examination in such a setting as this). I have tried to shed light on my point of view regarding these issues. I have tried to suggest a couple of actionable solutions rather than completely keeping or completely deleting. Maybe I'm wrong, but people are citing that the result last time was keep in order to support keeping the articles this time around, which induced my invocation of WP:CCC. We are not bound merely to consensus; also to logic. GracenotesT § 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is (are) the new argument(s)? I don't see any. DB (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic gist of my argument is below. I don't believe it was discussed on the first AFD from glancing over the debate, and but regardless, it's not being discussed here. GracenotesT § 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is (are) the new argument(s)? I don't see any. DB (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have presented a new argument or two, but otherwise, we're still discussing the same items, which I believe are still being misinterpreted or under-examined (and need more examination in such a setting as this). I have tried to shed light on my point of view regarding these issues. I have tried to suggest a couple of actionable solutions rather than completely keeping or completely deleting. Maybe I'm wrong, but people are citing that the result last time was keep in order to support keeping the articles this time around, which induced my invocation of WP:CCC. We are not bound merely to consensus; also to logic. GracenotesT § 04:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From WP:CCC, it states "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss.". Just what new information can you offer, without which I have the gut feeling you are doing precisely what WP:CCC is discouraging?--Huaiwei 03:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:CCC? I gave you a link above, but it perhaps you may not have gotten around to taking a look. I'm bothering because these lists are (in my opinion) outside of Wikipedia's scope: another line of thinking which has not generated much interest, let alone analysis. GracenotesT § 03:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - would it be possible to make the destination lists subpages? That's essentially what they are; they're just too long to put on the main pages. Something like American Airlines/destinations. Would that be an unwieldy title? I would think most people go to the page directly from the airline article, so it shouldn't be a big problem. DB (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- why individuals insist on keeping information that cannot be properly maintained is beyond me. They are just sub pages of real articles why can’t we just direct individuals to were the actuate information exist?--Riferimento 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this information really does exist somewhere do please let the world know. The airline sites generally do not list it. If they do, it is frequently hidden somewhere within the site. HP provided it as a nice list at one point, but they stopped a while back or moved it to a location I could not find. What is easy to find is locations that the airline is able to fly you to. This means they get get you to an airport even if it is not a destination they fly to. That is the difference with out lists. They document locations that the airline ACTUALLY FLIES TO! Even press releases announcing flights have to be used with care since they will make it sound like the airline is now flying to a destination when in fact they are not. We also work to provide standard names across all articles so that readers know what airport is actually being used. Bottom line these articles are encyclopedic and contain information that is not really available anywhere else that we know of. What I don't understand why this 'it already exists' logic keeps showing up. It has been explained many times here and in the previous AfDs that it does not. I will admit that in many cases, the route map contains this information. However it is in a form that is very difficult to follow and the reader needs to decode it for the regional carries, alliances and code shares and then try to follow the line though a maze of them to figure out a destination. And again, not all airlines offer these. Vegaswikian 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course these lists can be maintained. It is a relatively easy task. As to why not just direct individuals to where the acurate information exists, please look at the references used for the following range of articles I am working on, Kyrgyzstan (airline), Kyrgyzstan Airlines (this one doesn't even have a website, yet it is a national airline), their destinations are referenced, by both official sources and secondary sources, but unfortunately, up-to-date sources in English are not available, only in Russian. Would you really say to someone, here ya go, and try to decipher it as best you can? And you can't say 'go look at their website, as Kyrgyzstan Airlines, Air Koryo, Turkmenistan Airlines, and numerous other major airlines, don't have a website to look at. Yet properly sourced and edited, there is no reason these lists can't remain. After all, an airline is in the business of flying between airports/cities. If one can't list these, what is the point of having any other info on these companies? The suggestion of only listing the 'major' destinations is unworkable, as this will bring WP:POV into play as editors will need to make a judgement call, which by the very nature of wikipedia, we are unable to do. --Russavia 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the lists can be maintained and can comply, through a fair amount of vigilance, with our policy of verifiability. However, I still remain of the opinion that such lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia in general, similar to how dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia in general. They do not contribute to creating free content; rather, they compose a storage of mercurial data without a context of content—that is, not worked into article prose, and of no insightful value otherwise. I recognize that an extraordinary amount of meticulous work has gone into maintaining these lists, but it's work that I believe is unnecessary. GracenotesT § 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unmaintainable, WP is not company's website. Pavel Vozenilek 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I maintain 10 airline destinations articles and update them at the least every month (to change: [As of month], shall no destinations be added or discontinued) for the 10 airline articles I contribute to. It's not really that hard to remove or add a destination when an airline announces discontinued/new service. Sox23 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is an online encyclopedia edited by its users. Therefore it is acceptable to have changing up-to-date information. This information is intersting also, information of what service a service company gives is interesting for an article about it. BIL 12:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful, interesting and helps to reduce cluttering on the respective main articles. Thrane 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many of the reasons presented for keeping boil down to the 'fact' that this information is available. The truth of the matter is that this information is not available in other sources. The fact that this characteristic is so defining that airlines try to hide the truth to improve the appearance of their importance supports its encyclopedic importance. As presented above, destinations do not change all that often contrary to another assertion for the delete argument. Routes do change and that fact is why the airline project does not support including these in airline articles. So clearly this information is defining, can be maintained and is not available elsewhere in the clean format that an online encyclopedia can provide. So there are clear reasons to keep these articles. The closer should be able to close this as a keep if the strength of the arguments are given appropriate weight. Vegaswikian 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Vegaswikian and others. However, the vast majority of these articles are not referenced and needs to be looked at. --Russavia 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per many well-reasoned arguments in the last discussion. Nothing new here. --- RockMFR 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Those are really useful and are maintained regulary. Also by myself. Vitya 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.