Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous United Airlines destinations

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 Delete. Maxim_(talk) 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous United Airlines destinations

It is my humble opinion that this sort of listing is not necessary for Wikipedia to have, it might be enough to just have a link to the appropriate everything2.com page. The United Airlines article could talk a little bit about destinations that have been discontinued and why. Plinth molecular gathered 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand how this is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. MarkBul 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and most especially not for a list of "previously" loosely associated topics.—Mrand ^T-C 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic at all.--JForget 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article only contains lists, not encyclopedic content. — Wen li ^(contribs) 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a joke? Sefringle^Talk 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no possible interest to anyone. Mandsford 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United Airlines destinations (though that article needs work itself, too). Robert Happelberg 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above -- seems like the best solution. A table format would go a long way towards making this more readable, too. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst *** destination articles have been up for deletion in the past and survived as an integral part of the Airlines Project, I don't see how this serves any purpose in an encyclopaedic sense, and with no prose at all I would say it is squarely against WP:NOT --Russavia 09:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand with information as to why these flights were discontinued. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect all these were discontinued for the same reason, in which case all we need is a paragraph in the United Airlines article ending with something like "... leading to the discontinuation of selected flights all over the world." Slappywag42 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Robert Happelberg, though I'm not all that excited about keeping the information around. Actually, some sort of information about why the airline stopped flying to those destinations would be useful. In the current destinations, some sort of information about the importance of the routes might be useful. (For example, Minneapolis to Chicago might be a fairly busy route for United, but Northwest Airlines might have more of the market share.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merger I don't why anyone wants to delete useful info like this. --CSharpBeatsJava 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is NOT a list of routes (i.e. this is NOT a list of city pairs). The fact that an airline totally pulled a destination is significant and encyclopaedic. Why? Because the airline totally removed itself from having a presence in city and exited that market. The sunk costs of restarting a previously served market are enormous (and much higher than adding incremental flights) and thus important to track. Thanks! --Inetpup 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Difficult to verify, does not assert notability. --Matt 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why such a short explanation? Doesn't seem to do justice.--Inetpup 05:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I vote here? Please keep this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportFriend (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.