- List of United Airlines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was not enough time to allow for more reasoning to be voiced in support of keeping this information up. The arguments in favor of deletion were plagued entirely with pure falsehoods, such as false claims that this list was in violation of various Wikipedia guidelines, & falsely claimed that this information requiring maintenance establishes Wikipedia as a newsfeed. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia meant to house a variety of information, & airline destinations, former, current & planned, should be among the pieces of that should have a permanent home here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9bcc:7810:1406:d05e:1342:a28a (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, because I can see you care a lot about this, but there's been plenty of time for discussion. We talked about airline destinations in general, in a central place, for 23 days here and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. Then we talked about the United Airlines destinations specifically, in the discussion you're complaining about, for seven days which is the full amount of time allotted for deletion discussions, and the community reached a clear conclusion that we don't want them. I'm afraid the situation is that we've heard these arguments that you raise, and we disagree. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity, it was you who took them down & it's you who has the power to reinstate them? 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That readers don't want this information is not reason enough to deprive other readers of this information who may find this information to be valuable or of other legitimate purpose that others may simply not see. To readers who don't want to see it, they should just simply disregard it but leave it be for other readers who look for this information, for whatever reason it may serve valuable to them. This list must be reinstated, along with the other 2 also needlessly suppressed. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL are not very strong arguments for retention/overturning of an article deletion discussion. Coastie43 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were true, there was far worse logic applied to the arguments favoring deletion. Because of those very weak reasons, this information is no longer anywhere on the internet. Where else would it be easily accessible if not for an encyclopedia? It's become extinct thanks to the foolish reasoning applied to its deletion & until its reinstatement, it will remain extinct on the internet needlessly. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Like it or not, the community has spoken clearly about these lists. Owen× ☎ 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per consensus. Many of the destinations lists (up to 260+ lists), listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/AfD_record had clearly stated arguments for deletion that was agreed by the community. Coastie43 (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the community's decision is wrong. I think the information is useful, encyclopedic, relevant, and easy to maintain, that this overcomes the negatives of it being "a lot of information", and that it is far more encyclopedic than swathes of articles about baseball leagues (for example).
But the community has come to a consensus, at the requests for comment and at this AFD. Accordingly, User:Explicit was required to close the AFD as delete. I am saddened by this, because I think it's a net negative for the encyclopedia. But since it's in line with the community's decisions, I must, with the greatest reluctance, endorse the closure. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not another airline destination case! See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive359#Closure_review_request_for_the_RfC_on_the_"Airlines_and_destinations"_tables_in_airport_articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD was on lists of the destinations of individual airlines (e.g. List of British Airways destinations), not the lists of airlines and destinations found in articles about airports (e.g. John F. Kennedy International Airport § Airlines and destinations). Sunnya343 (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as per User:OwenX and as per User:Stifle - The community has made it clear that a rough consensus considers these airline destination lists to be non-encyclopedic. As with Stifle, I am not sure whether I agree, but it is better to let the majority rule than to continue to fight over airline destination tables that a majority of editors think are indiscriminate information and so violate Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here, that's for information better suited to travel guides, and no travel guide would include this information. A specialty text might have before the internet. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another AfD going on at the moment which I'm admittedly involved in which is at the very least challenging the result reached at the now six year old RfC, which honestly wasn't very well attended for something that would create policy saying an entire swath of articles should be deleted. While I agree the closer reached a correct decision for this particular AfD, depending on the result of the active AfD, I'd be more than willing to draftify these articles. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as the AfD nominator. The outcome was rooted in Wikipedia policy and a consensus that had arisen over multiple discussions, including over 20 prior AfDs. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just thought I'd mention another AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, involving over 150+ similar articles. I think however it is closed, it will probably find its way to Deletion Review as opinion is very divided, demonstrating that not every editor who is interested in this subject was aware or participated in that RFC. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse essentially per the above. I am not at all certain this is the best choice overall, but there was certainly a consensus to delete present in the challenged discussion. Note that this discussion should probably apply to all three articles considered in this AfD, and as Liz notes above should probably also reflect the more well attended AfD currently ongoing. That is, an endorse here based on this AfD should not be interpreted as argument that these article should not be allowed if con consensus for their deletion is later found to exist. (I hope that makes sense). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Wikipedia consistency does not want to be a tour guide resource. That is not an encyclopedia. A list like this needs to be timeless, not tied to now. If the list is not covering the history of these destinations being serviced, then it gets deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. There was consensus to delete after a normal discussion period. Everything was done correctly and there is no significant new information (a new RfC with a different outcome might've been that information).—Alalch E. 23:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, largely per Stifle. I agree this is useful information, but the community has determined - not absurdly - that it does not fit Wikipedia policies. To me, one of the huge successes of Wikipedia is not only the encyclopedia that is being built, but a vivid demonstration that the Wiki collaborative model works. To me, this is a perfect example of material that could be very usefully maintained using the Wiki model somewhere, just with different specific policies. Martinp (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
