Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickair 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 no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickair destinations[edit]

Quite simply, fails WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO. Yes, I know this was created in good faith and in accordance with "guidelines" set up by those who manage airline topics, but an exhaustive list telling where Clickair flies simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with a paragraph in the main Clickair article informing readers that the line flies throughout Europe (with special emphasis on Spain and Italy) and to the Maghreb, but this is just excessive. Biruitorul (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article complies with the WikiProject Airlines guidelines in removing destinations lists longer than 10 from the main airline page to a dedicated page. Clickair destinations is one of over 200 airline desinations articles on Wikipedia. Most other airlines including many other Spanish airlines have a destinations page (see Vueling destinations, Iberia destinations, Spanair destinations to name a few) in accordance with the above guidelines. While I do not disagree with WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO, if we are to remove this destinations list, we should remove them all, a debate better held at WikiProject Airlines. SempreVolando (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A fair point, and I'll consider initiating that discussion once this AfD is over. Consider this a test case. Biruitorul (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually they were all nominated here in the past as a group the decision was to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:SempreVolando. The article should be categorized. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion has been held previously at Afd, here and here, and the result has been keep. The destinations to where an airline flies is the entire point of an airline, it an airline does not have destinations, there is no airline...simple. The problem that I personally have with the destinations pages is that the majority are not referenced inline with WP policy, and that should be looked at. --Russavia (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SempreVolando and Russavia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russavia. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not company's website. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is at least the third time this and related nominations have been here. The reasons to keep have been summed up above again. Consensus can change, but how many times do we need to ask. Once notability is established, articles don't simply lose it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the definition of material that falls under both What Wikipedia is not sections cited in the nomination. Notability has not "been established". Notability means that a topic is the subject of significant treatment in reliable, independent sources; it is not shorthand for having been kept for reasons unrelated to notability or on bases that confuse the way we mean that word here for the vernacular. Are there any independent sources which treat the topic of where an airline flies to substantively? Probably not, but I'd be willing to be convinced. Yet this and every other similiarly situated article I just looked at (ten of them) had no independent sources cited whatever—all unverified and putatively non-notable. In any event, notability and other policies are separate. Even is this and related articles were shown to be notable, which looks impossible, topics can still violate WP:NOT and should be deleted on that independent basis. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a travel guide, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is not stupid. The prior AfDs got it wrong as they ignored policy in favor of numerous arguments that appear right out of the examples at WP:AADD, such as I like it, it's interesting, it's useful, "people spent a great deal of time writing the material," etc. What is conspicuously absent from this page, thus far, is any policy-based rationale for keeping this material. The first keep cites to a wikiproject guideline which is not in keeping with policy and which begs the question as we already know the Wikiproject fosters the creation of these directories, followed by a classic WP:WAX argument. The only other rationale given is to refer to the previous debates about the larger class of articles. We are here. The nominator cites policy for deletion which appears to apply. I cite more policy for deletion which appears to apply. Does anyone have a policy-based reason these should be kept, or if not, why the policies cited are inapplicable?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It sounds like you're considering these as standalone articles. Rather, they should be considered as subpages of the main airline article (e.g. Clickair/destinations) except that, unlike talk pages and user space, subpages aren't enabled for the main article space. They were split out because for the large airlines (such as American Airlines), the destinations list was so long it overwhelmed the rest of the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOT#DIR is not relevant as the list is very precise for inclusion, that being, where this airline flies to, nor is it a 'yellow pages' type list. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is not relevant, as it is not a travel guide, but rather a list which provides precise detail as to the destinations this airline flies to, it is not a travel guide in the sense of what one would see on say virtualtourist.com. WP:IINFO is not relevant, as it is not indiscriminate, either the airline flies to these destinations or not. List of cities, towns, villages, hamlets Clickair flights pass over on their scheduled flights would be against WP:IINFO, this list is not. But yes, I do agree that the fact many of these destination lists are unreferenced is a concern (as I noted above), however, as these are not stand-alone lists, WP:V needn't necessarily be the be all and end all of inclusion of these lists, as WP:SELFPUB clearly comes into play. --Russavia (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)c[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, very well put. Hawaiian717 and Russavia: as far as I'm aware, WP:V (an official policy) still applies to non-stand-alone lists, and this list, along with its counterparts, fails. There's no lead section per WP:SAL explaining why this is relevant, or documenting that any third-party reference considers it notable. The fact that it's a "very precise" directory does not make it not a directory, for that is what it is -- a list of cities one airline happens to fly to -- and, incidentally, the primary audience for such a list would be tourists, so WP:TRAVEL also applies. "Indiscriminate" doesn't necessarily mean "untrue" -- WP:IINFO states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". And that is the case here. Airline destination lists have not been shown to be notable, regardless of what the WikiProject panjandrums say. Biruitorul (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Biruitorul. Regarding that it is a "not a stand alone article" (Russavia), it may be intended to function as a part of the article on the company but it doesn't. It is in the mainspace and is thus ipso facto stand alone. More importantly, while the distinction is at least colorably relevant for notability considerations, as that is a topic inclusion standard, it is irrelevant for WP:NOT and WP:V considerations as those are content inclusion standards. The issue is not why it became a separate article, but whether the content is appropriate, anywhere. In the article, or stand alone, the material suffers from the same defect. If it was still listed in the article, then it would be inapproriate there for the same reasons. The only difference is that because it is in the mainspace, we are here, rather than on Clickair's talk page, but the WP:NOT and verifiability issues would be the same.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you believe that this does not belong, then please take a look at Aeroflot, in which the destination list is in the main article, and is referenced to a verifiable, third-party source, and it most certainly is not in violation of any of the other WP:NOTs mentioned above. What you are doing in this Afd is trying to tell the airline project what does and doesn't belong in airline articles. As there have been quite a few comments from airline project members here already on this Afd, why have you not come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines to discuss this previously, as the airline project group as a whole is better able to judge what is and isn't needed in airline articles, rather than having article content dictated at Afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, no one granted the WikiProject that sort of power. Of course, I respect the expertise of the people there, but WP:V and WP:NOT apply regardless of what the airline project has "judge[d] what is and isn't needed in airline articles". Biruitorul (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is definitely precedent here that airline destination lists are notable per Russavia's links above. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikiproject Airlines guidelines. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuhghettaboutit; I'm not exactly sure what this article does to warrant inclusion on the encyclopedia; also, I'm not sure a certain Wikiproject's guidelines should be overriding core policies (WP:DIRECTORY, WP:TRAVEL). I respect that the people in Wikiproject Airlines are knowledgeable about the subject, but they don't have the power to carry out arbitrary ruling concerning the fate of articles they encompass. None of those destination lists is cited, and so far the only arguments to keep have been "there are other destinations articles" and "the Wikiproject allows them". Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:56, 16 January 2008 (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.