Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways 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. 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

List of British Airways destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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:

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

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]

• 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: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: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

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
  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: @

  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

  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

  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

  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: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 –

  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]