Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations (2nd nomination)

American Airlines destinations

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. -M^ask? 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Adria Airways destinations Aer Lingus destinations AerOasis destinations Aeroflot-Nord destinations Aeroflot destinations Aeroflot Don destinations Aerolínea de Antioquia destinations Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations Aerolitoral destinations Aeroméxico destinations Aeropostal destinations AeroRepública destinations Afriqiyah Airways destinations Aigle Azur destinations Air Algérie destinations Air Berlin destinations Air Canada destinations Air China destinations Air Deccan destinations Air Europa destinations Air France destinations Air India destinations Air Mauritius destinations Air New Zealand destinations Air Niugini destinations Air Pacific destinations Air Transat destinations AirAsia destinations AIRES destinations Airlines of Papua New Guinea destinations AirTran Airways destinations Alaska Airlines destinations Alitalia destinations All Nippon Airways destinations Allegiant Air destinations America West Airlines destinations America West Express destinations

American Airlines destinations American Eagle Airlines destinations Armavia destinations Aserca Airlines destinations Asiana Airlines destinations ATA Airlines destinations Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations Austrian Airlines destinations Avianca destinations Avior Airlines destinations Bmi destinations Brit Air destinations British Airways destinations British Airways franchise destinations Canadian Airlines destinations Carpatair destinations Cathay Pacific destinations Cebu Pacific destinations Centralwings destinations China Airlines destinations China Southern Airlines destinations City Star Airlines destinations Continental Airlines destinations Continental Express destinations Conviasa destinations Copa Airlines destinations Cubana de Aviación destinations Czech Airlines destinations Delta Air Lines destinations EasyJet destinations EgyptAir destinations El Al destinations

Emirates destinations Etihad destinations EVA Air destinations Finnair destinations Flyglobespan destinations Garuda Indonesia destinations Germanwings destinations Gulf Air destinations Hawaiian Airlines Iberia destinations Indian Airlines destinations Iran Air destinations Japan Airlines destinations Jat Airways destinations Jet2.com destinations Jetairfly destinations JetBlue Airways destinations Jetstar Asia Airways destinations KLM Cityhopper destinations KLM destinations Korean Air destinations KrasAir destinations Kuwait Airways destinations LAN Airlines destinations LAN Peru destinations Libyan Airways destinations Linhas Aéreas de Moçambique destinations Livingston Airline Destinations Lloyd Aereo Boliviano destinations LOT Polish Airlines destinations Lufthansa destinations Luxair destinations Madina Airlines destinations Malaysia Airlines destinations Malév Hungarian Airlines destinations Mexicana destinations Midwest Connect destinations

North African Airways destinations North American Airlines destinations Northwest Airlines destinations Northwest Airlink destinations Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations OceanAir destinations Olympic Airlines destinations Oneworld destinations Pakistan International Airlines destinations Philippine Airlines destinations Pulkovo destinations Qantas destinations Qatar Airways destinations Royal Air Maroc destinations Royal Brunei Airlines destinations Royal Jordanian destinations Ryanair destinations S7 destinations SAM destinations Santa Barbara Airlines destinations SAS Braathens destinations SAS Group destinations SATA International destinations SATENA destinations Saudi Arabian Airlines destinations Scandinavian Airlines System destinations SilkAir destinations Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations Singapore Airlines destinations SkyEurope destinations Skyservice destinations SkyTeam destinations SN Brussels destinations South African Airways destinations

Southwest Airlines destinations Spanair destinations Spirit Airlines destinations SriLankan Airlines Destinations Star Alliance destinations Sterling Airlines destinations Sun Country Airlines destinations Swiss International Air Lines destinations Syrian Arab Airlines destinations TACA destinations TAM Linhas Aéreas destinations TAP Portugal destinations Tarom Cargo destinations TAROM destinations Tassili Airlines destinations Thai Airways International destinations Tiger Airways destinations Transavia.com destinations Tunisair destinations Turkish Airlines destinations United Airlines destinations US Airways destinations Uzbekistan Airways destinations Varig destinations Wayraperú destinations WestJet destinations Widerøe destinations VIP Ecuador destinations Virgin Atlantic destinations Virgin Blue destinations Wizz Air destinations Xiamen Airlines destinations Yemenia destinations

• Transwiki I think this kind of content is more appropriate to another wiki, such as Wikitravel. Slavlin 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

You just told us why we dont send them to wikitravel, now why should we keep them here? You never got to that part. -M^ask? 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • I respectfully disagree; perhaps the information need not be included anywhere. Gracenotes^T § 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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. Gracenotes^T § 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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.) Gracenotes^T § 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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. Gracenotes^T § 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Quote on secondary sources from previous AFD:

    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)

    Michael Greiner 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup that's a third party source, However I said a secondary source, which is different. Addhoc 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • WP:V isn't the problem here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep all per Nurmsook--Jer10 95 Talk 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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". So far, 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)