Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 April 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus‎. This is not a "Keep" closure, this is not a "Delete" closure, this is a "No consensus" closure because I find no consensus here among editors. Many editors arguing for Delete cite a 2018 RFC decision but I found a number of discussions about policy on having articles with tables of airline destinations including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles (which concerns Airport articles but on the same subject of tables of airline destinations) which leave a definitive "All" decision impossible, at least for me. Also an "All" decision assumes that the quality of articles is identical or near identical among the nominated articles and it's not clear that is the case here.

Additionally, I haven't done a head count but I believe there are more editors weighing in here in this AFD than editors who participated in most of these past RFCs trying to establish a policy precedent. The 2018 RFC is now six years old, would an updated RFC come to a similar conclusion? I don't know but there are clearly a large number of editors who disagree with its conclusion. Secondly, there are enough editors voicing a preference for Merge that an outright Delete All closure would prevent any Merge from occurring. I also think this difference of policy interpretation is unreconcilable and no additional relists would help reach a firmer consensus. I fully realize that this closure will make all participating editors in this AFD unsatisfied and it is almost certain to go to Deletion review but someone had to close this discussion and so I bit the bullet.

I'm sure that whether this closure was Delete All, Keep All, Merge or No consensus, this AFD would end up at Deletion review given the division of opinion here so I advise those who are invested in this subject to go to DRV and argue whether or not this closure was appropriate. If you believe that the 2018 RFC should be reviewed 6 years later, you can take up that project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Airways destinations

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following 152 lists with the same problems:

Other lists

Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists for deletion in an orderly manner and recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. Since then, 24 AfDs have resulted in the deletion of more than 260 lists. I feel it's time to have a few final AfDs on the remaining lists.

The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.

I am not including the other 34 stand-alone lists of airline destinations in this nomination because those include some prose that has to be copied over to the parent article first. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, India, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Scotland, Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, and Hawaii. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I see no reason for these pages to exist. Athel cb (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you alone see no reason for them to exist does not discount the purpose others see in these pages. Simply disregard those tabs if they aren't relevant to you, but there is no other database that hosts all this information as clearly as Wikipedia. Should it be removed from here, it quite literally will not be found elsewhere. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all in accordance with the 2018 RfC and the various WP:NOT violations (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, etc.). Rosbif73 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are not in violation of WP:NOT in the slightest. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 RfC should not have been binding. It was the consensus of far too few people who essentially ended up speaking for the grand majority of the internet, many of which would prefer this information remain on Wikipedia as is. If today, there was a new RfC, it's very possible a far different verdict would have been reached. An RfC from that long ago should not be invoked today, nor should a small discussion like that have set a precedent for the future. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and previous precedent. Yilloslime (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to argue for most of these, which are just simple lists of destinations. I think many of these could be notable with some prose, for instance the British Airways is not a simple destination list but catalogues everywhere the airline has flown, including terminated routes, and is well sourced, which I do think is indeed encyclopaedic given the airline's international scope. All we need are sources discussing airline routes, which are indeed covered in reliable sources! The fact we would include terminated destinations doesn't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, either. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also incorrectly used here - these lists are by their very nature discriminate, because they have a fixed scope. Most of these fail WP:NOT only because most of them are simple listings that haven't been put into context, and I think the lead AfD article - British Airways - at least comes close to putting these into context if it doesn't already. Perhaps there are others as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Indiscriminate: not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." No careful judgment is involved in the selection of destinations. All the cities on an airline's route map are included simply because it flies there as of March 2024, and even if it flew to some random city from 1981 to 1985, that destination also gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're deleting every single list on this website. SportingFlyer T·C 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of British Airways appears to be a comprehensive, well-researched article. It discusses some noteworthy services, e.g. the Concorde flight to New York and the Shuttle service to various British cities. However, the notion that this context (or a similar one for any other airline) can be used to justify the listing of every single destination of this carrier ever since it was established in 1974, is something I do not follow. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per past AFDs and RFC consensus. There are also different Wiki systems available across the web to to maintain such lists. Coastie43 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per 2018 RFC. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep Curious what this means in juxtaposition to the airport article destination tables that had its own comprehensive RfC that resulted in the lists being kept. WP:ALD for years guided us about composing lists, and the very statement put there now links us to an RfC that more or less has arguments listed in favor of keeping the lists. Does this mean, for example, that Wikipedia will eventually delete the fleet sections/lists that include current/former aircraft types operated if someone, some time from now, decides that aircraft types are advertising to the airlines, and that an airline simply operating an aircraft type is not a "careful judgement involved in selection"? Or that airport destination tables will be deleted next? What about the lists for airlines that have gone defunct, such as Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines whose lists were specifically not changing by nature from being historic, and could not possibly be used as a travel guide? There were arguments for the latter to be kept, but with the volatile nature of airlines' starting up and shutting down, how does it then only make sense to build a list for an airline that is defunct but not when it is existing prior to that? Editors are often told or reverted on in various ways about how to do something at one time with a certain guideline convenient for the sake of that person's argument, and then later told that they weren't supposed to be editing in the first place because of that person's conveniently-used argument, where the two contradict each other and the editor is at the mercy of either in an illusion of choice. It sounds as though with the direction this is going, there will be less and less reason to do any editing for airlines, airports, or aviation in general on Wikipedia. ChainChomp2 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate; this proposal, the RfC it was based on, and a previous RfC/AfD that initially deleted 400+ lists (which included airlines both active and defunct, which would obviously have varying levels of maintenance but were both treated with the "needs to be constantly updated" reasoning, as well as two featured lists...I can't find it, but recall reading through it in case it rings a bell) would set a dangerous precedent and slippery slope that would eventually discourage any and all editing for airlines and aviation, by their very nature of being volatile and rapidly changing. Similar proposals to remove airport destination tables were also attempted but ultimately the tables were kept, even in the exhaustive manner that they are today. Why shouldn't we keep airline destination lists for similar reasons that we kept airport destination lists? Who is to say that an airline's list of destinations will be the last type of content to be discouraged and disallowed for reasons that somehow did not apply to airport destination tables, of which were more numerous than those of airlines? An airline's very operational status, types of aircraft in its fleet, company executives, business trends, and financial performance are all things that change, yet are also chronologically documented (in varying degrees).

I am also changing my stance to a "keep" vote, but would be open to merging into the main articles, if even hidden under a drop-down like the list in the proposal. I personally did this for Norse Atlantic Airways where I spun off the list as its own article once it reached a certain length (as guidelined by WP:ALD at the time), then the list was deleted (yet I was curious why other lists that I worked on to an equal format and degree of referencing were retained, namely Avelo, Breeze, and Play, which are now among those listed in this proposal), so it was merged into the main article, then deleted again. ChainChomp2 (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning is simply going off of the precedent a small & irrelevant poll conducted years ago concluded. That these articles would require too much maintenance & frequent revision is not enough of a reason to delete them, as there have been completely competent & well-educated individuals who have taken it upon themselves to ensure these pages are always the most up to date & accurate versions of themselves they can be. Wikipedia is the only database in the entire internet that is incredibly easily accessible for this information. Airlines themselves don't even have as comprehensive & clear databases as Wikipedia's. This information remains relevant to many on the internet & that few disagree with their existence on Wikipedia is not reason enough to delete them. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are not an establishment of a newsfeed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where facts are stored. If today, there is a scientific discovery proving a past theory (that may currently be up on Wikipedia) incorrect, updating that previous theory to align with true fact is not reporting breaking news, rather providing an incredibly simple yet incredulously needed update to keep information on Wikipedia factual, staying true to its nature of being an encyclopedia. If these tables are the establishment of a newsfeed, then the grand majority of Wikipedia's content should be removed as there is much information within this encyclopedia that should be changed for it to remain a factual, credible source of accurate & concise information. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, Wikipedia should not be documenting all the periodic changes in airline schedules, e.g. the fact that British Airways will resume seasonal service to Izmir on 18 May 2024, or that Sun Country Airlines will start flying to Boise on 19 June 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why not? It's encyclopedic that Izmir and London are connected, or that Boise is connected to wherever that flight will go. SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are Fan Wiki sites that are now available for the airline fans to establish their own Wiki for who wish to keep an updated list of destinations for their airlines. Whilst there's been arguments in the numerous past AFDs why the information breaches on WP:NOT, such a suggestion of moving such lists to a dedicated fan wiki could be useful, where they can also list the exact date of service, the exact aircraft type and so forth on the dedicated fan wiki, which at this stage wouldn't be suited on the Wikipedia. Coastie43 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. (eg: the case of the history of British Airways to ChainChomp2's point). Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are cited I propose the correct action is to adhere to WP:SS editing guideline and WP:AVOIDSPLIT by moving any standalone lists back into their respective (all are associated by name already) historical airline page under a heading similar to: historical destinations.DigitalExpat (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To further expand/clarify my opinion - I continue to agree with the points and proposed potential solutions to improve Wikipedia's information as described by: @ChainChomp2. (and well worded objectivity by @SportingFlyer ) I would also support a Merge solution as a psuedo reversing of WP:AVOIDSPLIT.

To attempt to be more Objective and facilitate productive discourse here, I would like to opine there hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD. I'd like to restate the current proposal for deletion and address them, it stands to completely remove cited, structured, encyclopedic articles because:

1 - "The lists run counter to WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections[...]" - Can this be explained more? I'm checking the list now for all listed criteria and I don't see the connection here:

a) "Summary-only descriptions of works"

b) "Lyrics databases"

c) "Excessive Listings of Unexplained Statistics"

d) "Exhaustive Logs of Software Updates"

2 - (slippery slope argument) The articles are a "equivalent of looking at the airline's route map" - Explicitly not the case for most of these (properly maintained) lists, route maps do not discuss past/future routes that form a history and detailed description of this specific topic (Airline X)

3 - and "listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services [WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of WP:NOTCATALOG - it cites WP:LISTCRIT which the lists are well suited for based on WP:CSC. And if it is referring to "company's services", a list of flights no longer operated by a carrier is hardly advertising or promoting sales.

4. - "[...] or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24" - I don't see flight schedules mentioned in these lists, rather than destinations served at some point, defining and supporting the history and notability of the airline itself. Two entirely different lists and purposes and not served by flight schedule aggregators.

5 - "[...]If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates" To have lists covering decades of operation, describing and defining the airline through its services is hardly a newsfeed and doesn't meet any of the 4 points of WP:NOTNEWS, I would suggest showing current active destinations is strongly aligned the opening line of: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage

While WP:AFDDISCUSS reminds us that WP is not a democracy/majority vote does not determine if an article is to be deleted or not, I think the more open discourse before it can be agreed that the removal of well cited, structured, encyclopedic knowledge and information from Wikipedia is the right action to improve Wikipedia. Currently I personally don't believe this litmus test has been achieved to date. DigitalExpat (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll bite. I vehemently disagree that there "hasn't been a clear and indelible justification for deletion in this AfD". I'm also concerned that your critique zooms in on specific lines of the policy text. Fundamentally we are governed by the five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into WP:PAGs, but consensus is king whether it has been codified or not. The only thing consensus can't do is to establish procedurs clearly against non-negotiable principles (projects that do may attract attention over at meta).

What I'm getting at is that those of us who haven't said more than "NOT" or "NOTCATALOGUE" are not just arguing that these articles are prohibited by the policy, but rather that they constitute "indiscriminate [collections] of information" and are outside a scope described as analogous to "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (quoting the first pillar). That this is the correct interpretation of our "constitution" was decided in the RfC (the open discourse you call for already happened six years ago), and as I've stressed before some form of centralized discussion outside the scope of this AFD would be required to overturn that decision. Proponets of inclusion would be wise to explain clearly why these types of lists are actually within the scope of our mission of creating an encyclopedia. Stating that the information is verified, interesting or even citing individual lines of policy text does not cut it. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the close of that discussion is that there was agreement these broadly violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was the result of the close. I think that as written, an article like List of Icelandair destinations does present simple listings without context, and that most of these articles from 2018 were similar to that one - just a table with a list. I think most of us would agree it's difficult to see how List of TWA destinations is useful as written, and that those two examples violate WP:NOT. However, I think that can be clearly remedied for many of these airlines through prose - List of Belavia destinations isn't great, but it at least has started to provide context for the places where an airline flies, which is essentially necessary for understanding an airline's scope in an encyclopaedic manner - I do have at least a couple books, now in storage, which talks about airline fleets and destinations from a pre or early internet time, showing it's clearly within the scope of a "specialised encyclopedia." The other problem is WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often substituted for WP:IDLI - the sole problem here is that the information isn't properly contextualised. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is the other way around, that it is not actually clear where to draw the line on content for a project analogous to "specialized encyclopedias", especially with respect to these lists, hence the division. But wherever there is uncertainty as to the interpretation of the principles the wider community gets to decide where that line is drawn. If the argument is that the lists could hypothetically be something else it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals (to show what it would look like), but this is a volunteer project and no one is required to. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it would actually be of great benefit to that argument if someone would create one of those hypotheticals – List of Braathens destinations (not included in this AfD), which is a former featured list, might be an example. It has a detailed history section and notes the start and stop dates of all destinations. However, one of the reasons it was demoted was that the history section largely repeats prose in the parent article. I would add that the presence of that prose does not change the fact that the list goes against WP:NOTDB. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list mentioned also has the effect of an encyclopedia, and the reasons for deletion aren't logical, instead, it is related to destroying all pages. As commented by DigitalExpat, removing the page directly violates Wikipedia's rules and goals. Other pages with other languages, like Korean, don't remove the pages. Instead, they update the page to provide detailed, updated information to members and non-members (ex. visitors). same opinion as DigitalExpat, it needs to move any standalone lists back into their respective to preserve and update all the mentioned pages. And it is the right way to keep the Wikipedia's rules. KorFlyer88 (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the "notes"-sections among other things prove that this is not merely a list of historic destinations, but exactly the kind of list which consensus has determined is disallowed according to NOT. This AFD does not have the authority to overrule that RfC due to CONLEVEL. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Draken Bowser! In case your response was referring to my comment, just wanted to help clarify that I was referring to the lists of historic destinations in some of these article proposed for deletion (eg: BA destinations list), not reopening the RfC discussions that were cited. (These encyclopedic entries of historic destinations should be returned to their parent articles' sections about airlines' histories (in BA's case an entire sub article under Wikipedia:Summary style dedicated to it) which is different than maintaining active lists etc...), This proposed AfD is to delete all information, including historic destinations which is not addressed by the RfCs, cheers! DigitalExpat (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is nothing about the BA list that suggests it is a historic exposé. It is not framed as such in the lead. There is the "notes" section, which lists whether the route is currently operational or not. Lastly, it would need to contain some basic historic facts, such as the first year the route was flown. In its current format it constitutes a violation of NOTDIRECTORY. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draken Bowser, I want to inform you that five of the lists I included in this nomination (Aeroperú, Air New Zealand, Avelo, Breeze, and Play) do mention when the destinations began and ended. However, I still consider them to be indiscriminate collections of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Some of these articles have very extensive sourcing. I have spent countless hours over many years finding reliable sources for each entry for former cities that were once served by airlines in the past. This is why I'm trying to make improvements to Wikipedia to benefit the public at large. These lists have a lot of historical information combined together that you cannot find anywhere else. CHCBOY (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The few destinations which are particularly notable for some reason or other can be mentioned in the airline articles Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant point mentioned in an RfC for removing airport destination tables (and there are far more airport articles with their own lists than there were airlines with destination lists) was that if one tries to describe a few "notable" destinations with prose, who determines which or how many are "notable" and how many aren't? The contention in and of itself would lead to edit wars, or alternatively, once some destinations are described with prose, the full list isn't that far away. ChainChomp2 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have already done this quite well in the respective parent articles. Note how the Air India article incorporates destinations such as Trivandrum and Nairobi into the wider history of the airline, or how the Drukair page discusses the route to Gaya. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a travel agency for Airline List of destinations and such lists do not belong here. RangersRus (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists included in the proposal are for airlines that have since gone defunct or inactive, and would serve zero purpose as a travel agency or guide, nor would need constant updating going forward, such as the lists for Aeromar, British Midland International, Cyprus Airways (1947–2015), Mexicana de Aviacion, Pacific Airlines, Transaero, or Virgin America just to name a few. This would be in addition to the two off the top of my head that I recognized already being deleted, being the lists for Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines. Going to a website or aggregator as suggested in the proposal does not apply to them and an equivalent for their information does not exist. ChainChomp2 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDB continues to apply to the lists of defunct airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete most~~ Procedural keep Any article that is a simple listing of destinations at one point in time fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE, but I'm convinced properly sourced articles which include lists of historical destinations are encyclopaedic and can be kept, as the information demonstrates current and historical transport links between places, especially during the turboprop and early jet age. Historical encyclopaedias included current travel destinations from ports, for instance. The articles that can be kept include the British Airways list. Not entirely sure about others, but most of them do fail the first part. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this to be a clear delete. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if we re-ran that 2018 RfC. The biggest problem with these is that they lack context, and I'm not sure some can be properly sourced, but as noted I don't see any problem with keeping the good articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason is that this discussion has attracted more attention from the members of WikiProject Aviation than prior AfDs, which tended to cover minor airlines such as Flyglobespan and Avianca Costa Rica. This time, however, AfD notifications have been placed on the stand-alone lists of several major airlines.
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it's good to have more participation. Though I feel it's important to keep WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mind. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC you're trying to enforce is six years old, wasn't the most well attended RfC in the world, and triggered an AN discussion where it was agreed the RfC didn't mean these articles should be bulk deleted, in part because these deletions are controversial. I've changed my !vote to a procedural keep since it's clear some of these need to be deleted, but some of these could be kept or merged, and it's also clear from this current discussion that we should probably take another look at the past consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to see a number of misunderstandings from delete !voters, that this isn't encyclopaedic information because of various bits of WP:NOT. WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply because there's very clear inclusion criteria. WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information. Other delete !voters assume that the information here needs to be currently updated, which was also the basis for the RfC, but the list of airlines includes defunct airlines as well. As I've noted above, the lone problem is that most of these articles lack context per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but this is an editing problem, not a deletion problem, unless they're poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply because no travel guide would list this information. This statement is based on the letter rather than the spirit of the policy. An exhaustive list of cities that people can fly to on an airline as of April 2024 that also informs them when flights to a new destination will start or when service to a particular city will cease, is contrary to the spirit of NOTTRAVEL in my view. This is essentially a case of WP:NOTPRICE (Listings to be avoided include... products and services), and since the role of the companies in question is transportation, there is overlap with NOTTRAVEL. Sunnya343 (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Many of these articles have very informative and extensive lists. Some major airlines have lost their own articles already which were in combined deletions eg List of United Airlines destinations and the Lufthansa and American Airlines lists. When these were deleted there was no warning or notice on the actual pages affected.CHCBOY (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a notice found left on the WP:Airlines project talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Discussion_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_Airlines_destinations, as well as the standard notice on the appropriate destination list pages as well as transclusion to the appropriate categories. Coastie43 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree notice was properly given, but that AfD only ran a week, and I've often missed short but important discussions for a number of different reasons. There is a lot to keep track of on here! SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your !vote because you already !voted "Keep" above. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These lists show hubs, focus cities, bases, and terminated destinations. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have merely stated what is contained in these lists and not addressed notability. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding important historical destinations, why are generic terminated destinations a necessity to keep?

"These lists show hubs, focus cities, bases" The main airline pages already list their respective hubs, focus cities and bases. Lifetimelucid (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really sick of discussing this over and over and to wait for the outcome in order to continue editing these articles. I see many of the editors that express their opinions here never having edited any of these articles in the past. I have maintained many of these lists in the most up-to-date form. Do whatever you want, if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good. This is not the project it used to be a decade ago, when I had the time and the energy to argue against these nominations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer, this may sound patronizing coming from me. While WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument for the retention of these lists, I respect the work that people have put in to creating them. I have worked on them as well; for example I reorganized the List of Kingfisher Airlines destinations into a table and added references for all the former destinations.
Some of the lists include valuable references such as copies of pages in the now-unavailable FlightGlobal archive. I am going to copy them over to the talk pages of the respective parent articles so that they are conserved, regardless of the future of the stand-alone lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good" threatening to quit over 1 AfD? I've never seen that in all my years in AfD. Sounds like WP:EFFORT to me. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all empathise with a colleague expressing distress at losing literal hours of hard work. Regardless of our position on the scope of the encyclopedia. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise fully agreeing with User:Jetstreamer. What does wikipedia gain by destroying this well sourced materials. Axisstroke (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all,: per the nomination. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not only does it take time to keep track of every single destination an airline flies to, aside from the result of the 2018 RfC with violations in WP:NOT, it also seems unnecessary to make and keep these articles when the airline in question more than 90% of the time already lists these destinations and updates them on a regular basis. Any notable historical destination an airline may have flown to could be merged into the parent article if necessary for encyclopedic purposes. Lifetimelucid (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This "90%" statistic statement you've pulled out is entirely false, a quick internet search of the world's largest, most well-known airlines do not have databases of their destinations as comprehensive & clear as those found on Wikipedia. The maintenance required shouldn't be a factor in deleting these very valuable, useful tables. By that logic, anything that needs editing or alteration on Wikipedia should instantly be taken down. Maintaining articles is not the establishment of a newsfeed, therefore proving these tables are not in any WP:NOT violation. You yourself will not be required to maintain these articles, so the burden will not fall on you to make constant adjustements. There are those who do know which adjustments to make when & will do so effectively, thus keeping the information found on this encyclopedia accurate & up to date. You not seeing a reason to keep these tables up is not reason enough to deprive the rest of the public from seeking that information here. If it is irrelevant to you personally, simply disregard it but many find this information to be incredibly useful for a variety of reasons. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)— 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly Merge into all respective airline articles, this is good information especially relevant to the aviation industry. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that may be relevant to the aviation industry (i.e. an indiscriminate catalog of flight destinations) are not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:NOTCATALOG. Pilaz (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not indiscriminate lists though - there's crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, a list of all currently operating and closed Walmart stores around the globe would also have clear inclusion criteria... Sunnya343 (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others. Taking as an example the headline List of British Airways destinations page, this seems to get an average 299 page views per day. That's lots of people who choose to come to English-language Wikipedia because they think it's the best source of information that they are looking for. Corporate web sites are aimed at making money for corporations - they are not about sharing freely available, accurate and transparent information - that's part of the reason for Wikipedia to exist. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE is about distinguishing between a statement saying "trains depart at 09:17, 09:47 and every 30 minutes to place X" from saying "there are trains to station X". I do not see anything on these pages saying the departure times or even the frequency of flights between destinations - only a list of destinations. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE states clearly that saying not just a list of destinations but also a frequence is allowed - it's just the exact time of departure which is discouraged. We are not talking about a page about somebody's pet cat, we are talking about deleting pages with substantive and non-offensive content which has been put together by volunteers over many years using a wide variety of reliable sources. When information changes, those volunteers find time to update the pages as quickly and as accurately as possible. Societies in the past have chosen to burn books because they were not deemed pure enough for what some people in a society wanted. History does not favour this approach. Pmbma (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others." WP:EFFORT isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ This isn't the establishment of a newsfeed. Information is never a constant, there is new information about anything & everything everyday. The fact that alterations must be made to keep these pages up to date & accurate does not mean their deletion should come to fruition. By that token, the grand majority of the information found on all airline pages should be removed. New hubs constantly open, current hubs constantly close, alterations must be made to keep that information up to date as well, but that information shouldn't also be nominated for deletion. Same thing with the fleets, new types are introduced constantly, & retired just as constantly. That is no reason to remove the fleet articles either. This information is not in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines whatsoever & there is no reason in the slightest to take this down. If this information is irrelevent to someone, let those people disregard it, but it remains incredibly useful to many, for whatever reasons they may employ this, & Wikipedia is the sole place on the internet with databases as clear, concise & comprehensive as they currently appear. Should these articles be needlessly deleted, it would lead to the essential extinction of this information, as airlines themselves don't even post this kind of information because they know Wikipedia already has it up in very clear & easy to understand manners. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whilst you can make comments, you cannot vote more than once. I've struck your vote. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Airline articles where relevant, to find a balance between being discriminate and still including valuable info. FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with all previous 'keep' justifications. I outright don't think we should be deleting ANY information on ANY website on a scale such as this. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or otherwise Merge I agree with others to just "keep" the pages, otherwise if it's deleted, I think it's better to say we will "merge" to the main airline article or something. Drcarrot.phd (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - curious to say, if this pages will gonna be deleted soon, I say let's add or include the following lists: List of Singapore Airlines destinations, List of AirAsia Group destinations, and other destinations that haven't mentioned since majority of the pages nominated to be deletion or something
Drcarrot.phd (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There is no reason at all to take all this incredibly valuable information off this encyclopedia, which is where this information should always be kept safe, never at risk. Maintenance is necessary for the grand majority of articles at Wikipedia, but they don't signify the establishment of an official newsfeed. Information needs to be altered at times in order for it to remain accurate & as up to date as possible. Maintenance alone should not be a factor to consider when arguing an article should be taken down. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where information can easily be brought up & researched thouroughly, which is exactly what some do with the information of airline destinations. If information can't be found on an encyclopedia, where then? Most airlines don't even have this information as clear & concise listed on their own websites because they know this is information worthy of being in an encyclopedia, & that Wikipedia is the perfect place for that. If this information is taken down needlessly here, it will indefinitely become extinct on the internet as there are no other websites that have as comprehensive of guides to airline destinations as Wikipedia does. This information must be kept alive here, it's its only home. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi @2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A, There are already Wiki alternatives as as Wikia, where the deleted Airline destination lists, as well as current ones can be trans-wiki to their own dedicated Wiki. A number of fan communities has started their own wikis, which is a good host for Airline destination fans to maintain their lists, and can also be expanded on by their exact date, the aircraft type and so on. Typically information that may likely fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY on Wikipedia would be available to be posted on a dedicated Airline destinations Wiki(a) with dedicated administrators if they wish to start such a site. Coastie43 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting more than once is unproductive, please stop doing it. Q ^{T C} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per RFC decision and precedent of the other 260 lists so deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per justifications which had already been listed above. S5A-0043^Talk 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah shit, here we go again. We just had a large deletion discussion over airport destination and now it's airline destination? Many suggest to move the content to Wikia (or better yet, Wikidata) yet nobody has pointed exactly which website in Wikia caters to this need and nobody has said they're willing to put in the effort in assisting with the migration. If deleted before a Wikia site is set up, these contents are not readily available to be migrated off Wikipedia to Wikia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOG and the global consensus reached at the 2018 RFC cited in the nom. Frank Anchor 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we already reached a common consensus before. Plus the information is placed from good reliable sources and there is no harm in providing it. Plus it provides a uniform for anyone who wants to find out if an airline flies to it or not etc compared to other sources. Naren.Ayinala (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the RFC and policy seem quite clear on this, and I haven't seen any policy based arguments for keeping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above or Merge into the main airline article. UltraBlazer (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the 2018 RFC and the more recent RFC on such lists for airports . These lists fail NOTCATALOG, if not other parts of NOT. Notable destinations like hub cities or major ports should be documented as prose using what secondary or non primary sources say about such. External links to an airlines website can be added to the airline article to give a reader a way to look at the airlines' service map. Many of the keep votes are begging USEFUL or EFFORT, which are not valid reasons to keep. Masem (t) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse my 'stalking' of editors' contribution histories. By my count, 13 of the 17 people who have !voted Keep/Merge so far edit considerably in the aviation space, compared to 3 of the 16 people who have !voted Delete.
Don't get me wrong; the members of WikiProject Aviation are key stakeholders here. However, when people within a particular community on this site generally have one opinion, and those outside that community generally have another, we have to take WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnya343, I'm not sure what exact point you are trying to make. A closer takes all opinions, especially from experienced editors, into account. Opinions are not disregarded because the editor specializes in editing in a certain subject area, a closure is based on arguments put forth, relevant policy and sourcing. Closers don't do research into editors' background to find out where they choose to edit and I don't think spending your time doing this is helpful in coming to a discussion consensus which is the goal here. This is not a battleground where one side wins and another loses, we try to assess what outcome, among editors as a group, is best in line with Wikipedia's policies and their own preferences. I close many AFDs with results I don't agree with but the consensus is the consensus which we all need to live with. It could be that these articles are deleted or not. Perhaps such a large bundled nomination was not the best approach (it often isn't), but the discussion is what it is and as long as it is open, it continues to evolve. All I'm certain of is that I thought this discussion would be a SNOW close and clearly that outcome is not in line with the consensus any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Lenticel, my comment was inspired by what the closer of this 2018 deletion review said: By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn.

I'm not saying that as an excuse, though. I apologize for reviewing people's contribution histories, that was not right to do and I went overboard. And you're definitely correct, it's the arguments that matter at the end of the day, not who is making them. I will strike my comment and a related one above. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) I just realized that it might seem like I was calling out the closer of that deletion review; that was not my intention. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add, however, that I disagree with the view that bundling all of these lists into one nomination was a bad idea. This is the 25th AfD on lists of airline destinations. One prior discussion bundled 82 lists, another 120 lists. I don't know how many more times we want to talk about this topic, especially since I believe there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists. Another editor put it more bluntly in the July 2023 AfD, and I have to say that I concur: It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a biased and one sided view you present, you would do better to keep your distance to the discussion. First you start this proposal with a flawed assessment then you add zero arguments. I am changing my vote to Strong Keep based on the encyclopedic nature of the material. Axisstroke (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to aviation enthusiasts. I myself spend most of my time on this site editing articles about airports. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sunnya343 can you just let the AfD run its course? What's with all the stalking and striking down of votes? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the !votes where posted more than once, thus a number of duplicate !votes were struck out by a number of editors. The editors concerned were notified on this talk page or own their own talk pages by the editors that have struck the duplicate !votes. Coastie43 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the RfC. As for those with issues on the effort was wasted in the creation of these lists. There is an airlines' Fandom (formerly Wikia). It can be transwiki'ed there unless there were attribution issues that I did not take into account. Other more detailed articles like those for Pokemons were transwikied to these sites before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article gives context to British Airways main article, is referenced and unlike comments that this fandom, it is does not have this flight started here and runs at this time, which would be fandom. WP:NOT says Wikipedia does not require every piece of information, data or opinion that exists. This page does not have that (that would be a complete timetable), and when in context with the main article, which is well over the SPLIT level, shows the breadth of BA's range and size.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into the main airline article. SiniyaEdita (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The RfC was greatly flawed & should never have been binding. The consensus was only reached due to the fact that many believed these list would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, over half of the content found on Wikipedia entirely would need to be removed as much of that information also requires heavy maintenance & constant alterations. If today, Puerto Rico became the 51st state, the country's Wikipedia page would need to be altered to become more accurate & up to date, but according to very weak logic, this would transfrom Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a news source, so therefore the country's page should be taken down entirely, as it must also be changed everytime a new president takes office as well. The 2018 RfC was incredibly self contradictory & entirely counterintuitive. It renders the grand majority of information on this encyclopedia as news & not as simple information & therefore all that information should also be erased, but doing so would be incredibly foolish. The removing of all this useful information would be incredibly hypocritical, as where else are we supposed to seek information but from an ENCYCLOPEDIA? 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per RfC. It has been extensively covered how these pages violate numerous ideals of Wikipedia whereas most of the Keep votes center around the idea that all pages should be kept since somebody at some point put some effort into them, which taken to the logical extreme means no page should ever be deleted which is counter-intuitive to the intentions of Wikipedia. Q ^{T C} 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Thank you for your bold AfD. Articles like these are always out of date and better served by the website which is maintained by the companies they serve. The RfC and WP:NOT clearly apply. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per reasons above. RPC7778 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 previous votes are delete. You have presented zero arguments for keep. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the 2 previous votes above my statement, obviously. RPC7778 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it is not at all apparent what you might be referrning to. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really have to specify which user's reason I support, though? I mean, some users have already made statements above that are very similar to mine. I'm unsure why I'm the only one getting called out. ~~RPC7778 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)~~ RPC7778 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's perfectly all right to refer to "the entirety" of arguments stated by either side of the argument. It is up to the closer to interpret what that means. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't see why we'd make this process so complicated that we can't accept a statement which basically says "I think people above have presented good arguments for [preferred outcome]". In policy interpretation, understanding what positions editors agree with is a strong indicator of Wikipedian consensus. /Julle (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand to include more information, such as former destinations, destinations served by each airports, and so on and so forth. These are important and valuable information to know the development of each carrier's network in history, and for some airlines such information reveals ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. Undelete those lists which have been deleted. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the development of each carrier's network in history, [...] ups and downs in economic ties and international relations. A list of data does not communicate any of this information. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a properly sourced list of current and formerly served destinations is an integral part of a complete airline article.2001:A61:128E:F01:3931:7A23:6FCC:8DC0 (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:A61:128E:F01:3931:7A23:6FCC:8DC0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep all - there is no real reason to delete the lists en massee; they are very useful for all airline articles. The lists are too long and detailed to be included in the parent airline pages, so going ahead with this is going to basically waste all the time and effort of thousands of editors in compliling and updating them. There is a lot of encyclopedic value in these, especially considering that exhaustive, sourced lists for many of these airlines are non-existent. I doubt most of those who claim they're not up to date have been through even a few, or are able to really know they're not up to date. By this logic most articles on here should be deleted The solution for this issue is not to delete en masse, but to update them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyvagaba (talk • contribs) 21:57, April 1, 2024 (UTC)
WP:EFFORT and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the British Airways destinations talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_British_Airways_destinations. There is 3 reviews of deletion of the page in 2006, 2007 and 2015. The results were to Keep the page each time. So it's interesting to see the history of this regular process which seems to repeat again.CHCBOY (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate encyclopedic content in the case of the larger airlines. It is possible that some of the smaller ones should be deleted, but they should be nominated individually. To the extent that a 6 year old RFC formed a consensus of some sort, consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this mass-nomination of the remaining Airline lists is increasingly likely going to go the same way as the previous mass nominations and likely end in No Consensus, due to the varying quality of the pages. As the previous RFC quoted, it was recommended they should be nominated individually (i.e depending on the quality of the list) rather than en-masse. As Stifle said, as some of the smaller carriers / lower quality lists may potentially be nominated again individually in the future under separate nominations as they may be 'simple' lists that may fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and may primary rely heavily on one or two primary sources (i.e heavily dependent on WP:PRIMARY sources from the company website and/or related aviation blog (with little/no secondary sources), in addition to possibly failing WP:CORP) but at the same time there are also a number of well sourced lists that also use secondary sources as well. Coastie43 (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before starting this AfD I had reviewed the past discussions, and I had noted this comment from Jayron32 here, which summarizes well the counterargument to your point about referencing: Delete per WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But everything in that comment is incorrect. There is clear and discriminate criteria, the fact defunct airlines have potentially notable articles and that we track historical destinations means this isn't ephemeral, and trivial generally means lists of isolated information, which these are not. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ephemeral refers to the listing of current destinations, which change regularly, i.e. the list from today is different from the one in June 2023 or March 2014, as airlines continue to add and discontinue service to various cities. Regarding trivia, I think this is an accurate description of this information, for example the fact that Delta currently flies to 16 cities in Florida (and the names of each are provided) or that Avelo Airlines flew to Ogden from 4 May 2021 to 26 June 2022. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Jetstreamer's arguments above and think by and large that these lists are encyclopedic entries when well-sourced and maintained. Particularly for larger airlines, information about past destinations and route development is covered in detail by reliable sources giving plenty of material for expansion. I might agree with merging some of this information into main airline article in the case of smaller airlines but a mass deletion is absurd. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2024 (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.