The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
And also the following list of 119 other airline-destination articles, all with limited sourcing:
Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a well-advertised and attended AFD in May in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. In a further AFD in July, 82 lists of airline services were deleted, with the !voting being entirely in favour of deletion. Since May a total of 139 airline destination lists have been deleted in 19 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.
The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.
In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that
WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings"
and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"
. They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by
Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of
Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia (
another thing that Wikipedia is not).
The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. Where reliable sources are cited, these are not cited for significant coverage of the destinations of the airline concerned but instead for something incidental - for example, a BBC article about countries closing their airspace to Russian airlines in general is cited for destinations being terminated for a specific airline.
In every case, no source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience and independence standards under WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating on a specific date is the airline itself and this information is therefore inherently incapable of being reliably and independently sourced. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.
(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great). FOARP ( talk) 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
toomanyvalues error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again). I'll try some things to attempt to get the gadget to not break in the nomination statement. SWinxy ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of so much hard work from dedicated editors.... For instance, I created the list of Aeroput destinations, an historical era work about destinations between 1927 until 1948 which is certainly interesting for aviation nostalgics. We have the opportunity to have the lists of all destinations of close to all airliners in the world, but we are unwilling to do so despite having dedicated editors agreing to do it all by Wiki rules and standards (proper sourcing, etc.) I ask myself, what we win by this. Erasing that info is literally giving other airliners websites an edge, and we fall to simply borring, basic info, texts which no aviation enthusiast will care from now on. My activity was limited in latest time, but I am astonished to have found this decition and found specially unpreciated since I made a list about one of the first companies in the world and thought this contribution was valiable. FkpCascais ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
And also the following list of 119 other airline-destination articles, all with limited sourcing:
Per the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations, these are not suitable content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion recommended these be listed for deletion at AFD in orderly fashion, with a link to the RFC, and the closer of any AFD was to take the RFC into account in any close. That the 2018 RFC remains the consensus of the Wikipedia community was re-emphasised in a well-advertised and attended AFD in May in which 14 articles were deleted, a consensus to delete that was subsequently strongly endorsed on review. In a further AFD in July, 82 lists of airline services were deleted, with the !voting being entirely in favour of deletion. Since May a total of 139 airline destination lists have been deleted in 19 different AFD discussions, including lists of the destinations of national flag-carriers and of a member of Star Alliance, with none being closed as kept that I am aware of.
The articles should be deleted as they are failures of WP:NOT. Specifically, they are exhaustive lists of the services offered by commercial enterprises as well as being essentially travel-guides. They are also effectively advertising for the companies concerned, another thing that Wikipedia is explicitly not. Since they can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news.
In addition to this, every one of these articles is dedicated entirely to exhaustive lists of trivial, run-of-the-mill details of commercial operations of a kind that
WP:CORP expressly bars from being used to sustain notability, making the content of them essentially trivia and non-notable ab initio. This includes "simple listings or compilations, such as ... product or service offerings"
and "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as...the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops [and/or] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"
. They are the equivalent of a list of pizzas sold by
Pizza Hut on 3 October 2007, or a list of
Blockbuster Video outlets operating on 23 January 1988: pure indiscriminate trivia (
another thing that Wikipedia is not).
The sourcing of these articles also universally fails to sustain notability under WP:GNG let alone WP:CORP. The articles that include are either cited to the airline itself or to aviation industry press that fails to meet the WP:ORGIND standard. Where reliable sources are cited, these are not cited for significant coverage of the destinations of the airline concerned but instead for something incidental - for example, a BBC article about countries closing their airspace to Russian airlines in general is cited for destinations being terminated for a specific airline.
In every case, no source is cited, having significant coverage of the destinations of each airline, that would meet the audience and independence standards under WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND. Realistically, the only people who can ever tell you what services an airline is operating on a specific date is the airline itself and this information is therefore inherently incapable of being reliably and independently sourced. Particularly where the lists declare a service to be "terminated", this has been achieved through original research by comparing lists of previous services with those presently operated by the airline, since even if a source could found saying the service was terminated, that only verifies as of the date the reference was published, not as of the date given for the list which may be years later.
(I'll try to template the articles in the next few days, but if anyone with AWB would like to do it in the meantime that would be great). FOARP ( talk) 09:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
toomanyvalues error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again). I'll try some things to attempt to get the gadget to not break in the nomination statement. SWinxy ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deletion of so much hard work from dedicated editors.... For instance, I created the list of Aeroput destinations, an historical era work about destinations between 1927 until 1948 which is certainly interesting for aviation nostalgics. We have the opportunity to have the lists of all destinations of close to all airliners in the world, but we are unwilling to do so despite having dedicated editors agreing to do it all by Wiki rules and standards (proper sourcing, etc.) I ask myself, what we win by this. Erasing that info is literally giving other airliners websites an edge, and we fall to simply borring, basic info, texts which no aviation enthusiast will care from now on. My activity was limited in latest time, but I am astonished to have found this decition and found specially unpreciated since I made a list about one of the first companies in the world and thought this contribution was valiable. FkpCascais ( talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)