Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:12, 4 May 2007

List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports

Seems like listcruft. It's unencyclopedic and 100% redundant with info already found in the airport articles DB (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedias 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. Gracenotes^T § 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! 500% redundant and out of date. No honestly! -chris^_^ 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why? We don't need destination lists by country. Vegaswikian 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe Wikimedia foundation could come out with a Wikibase project - like Google Base... but, a wiki. Then the content could be served up dynamically and flexibly and linked to Wikipedia as appropriately. Although this could be quite useful, it seems to me that you just would not ever find this in an paper and glue encyclopedia. How about it is moved to Wikitravel and then deleted? It seems such a shame just to delete someone's hard work on a document that would be so useful to the right person. --Remi 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is more like "data" than "content", and the latter is a bit closer to the WMF's goals. If you wish, you may copy down the current content and paste it elsewhere given that: 1. you indicate that it's from Wikipedia, giving the page's title, and 2. compile a list of every single person who has ever contributed to the article and display that. (See GFDL.) If the second is too cumbersome I'd be glad to help. A doable endeavor, but it doesn't even stay current for long. Gracenotes^T § 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly pointless and unmaintainable list. Remi, is there any article here you do think should be deleted? I find it hard to think of an article less useful than this one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencylopedic and impossible to keep up to date. --MCB 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''Delete''' as unencylopedic and impossible to keep up to date. --[[User:MCB|MCB]] 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' pointless, unencyclopedic list. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
+*<small>'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletions]].  </small> -- [[User:Pax:Vobiscum|Pax:Vobiscum]] 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)