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 keep. Though the consensus here is to keep this article, I do agree with LoveUxoxo that we may have a problem maintaining such list articles and keeping them up to date. However, that issue is unlikely to be settled by one AFD. Perhaps a discussion on this issue at Wikiproject aviation or the village pump may be a good idea. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Airlines destinations[edit]

Czech Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The place for this is in the web site of the airline. Why should an encyclopedia give this kind of data? Or if particular, a summary of this could be moved to the main article Czech Airlines. Either way we dont need an exclusive encyclopedia article telling us where a particular airline could reach us. Those who need that data wont come here, they'll rather go to the airlines website for accurate info. And those who come to the article Czech Airlines would not wish to know these kinds of details. So in short this article serves no purpose. Austria156 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Standard type of article, as shown by a search and the project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline destination lists DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have any of these lists? Randomly looking through them some have been updated in the past few months, some not in years, many don't have dates. When it's unrealistic to expect from the community the effort required to keep these lists up-to-date (and therefore useful in some way), accurate info would be better provided to the reader with an external link to the airline's website. So I think I agree with the nom in principle, maybe this isn't the place and maybe an effort should be made to get rid of all. I'm somewhat loathe to head in that direction considered all the work that was obviously done for these lists, but it really seems pointless. Every airline article I have read has the destinations already included. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a very standard Wikipedia list, of which these lists the broad community as a whole has built up and maintained and generally they are maintained very well. Suddenly advocating the removal of them by throwing up an AfD of one such list is out of line of seeking broad community consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not lose our focus: Is it/are they necessary? Do they serve any real purpose? If a standing convention is the only argument in favour, then is it not time that we consider changing it? And let us begin that change from here, from this page. Let us remove this article and suggest the removal of others too. Austria156 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to parent, while I declined the speedy, that was for solely procedural reasons. I don't find any sources showing any particular notability of an exhaustive list of destinations of this airline. It's possible it could be in some cases, but "This is done for others" is not a valid inclusion reason (as in the first two keeps). Instead, it must be shown that the subject of this article in particular is notable, and I can't find the amount of sourcing on this subject that would demonstrate that—my search for sources seems to demonstrate quite the opposite. This seems to be the definition of an indiscriminate list of information that would be better summarized in the parent than written out exhaustively in a standalone list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appears to be I dont like it request but as a standard daughter article of parent airline it doesnt appear to be any different than others in the same cat, this is not the place to discuss all 300+ articles in the same category unless you tag all of them. It is not intended as a travel guide so it doesnt have to be up to date it is to show the extent of the airlines services so is clearly part of the description about Czech Airlines. The airline project has split this subject in to a daughter article when the list has become to large for the parent. In this case it is big enough to stand-alone. It may not be the best quality article but not a reason to delete. Note two destination list articles are featured lists so they clearly meets the list criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted on the article's talk page, this article was twice included in bulk AfD discussions covering all of the destination articles, in 2006 and 2007. Both times the consensus was to keep. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Otherwise we should delete all other airline destinations pages. As with many other sections of any article, splitting is a good idea to avoid including data that has the potential to become extremely large in the main page, and just let anyone interested in further insights to go to the secondary article. These pages are the perfect candidate for expansion and for providing information that cannot be thoroughly covered in the main article, i.e. the history of the route network, which is not to be confused with the history of the airline itself. I believe the ties Czechoslovakia once had with the USSR in particular and with the Communist Bloc in general in defining the airline's route network are worth mentioning here. BTW, thanks to MilborneOne for letting the community know about this nomination.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hawaiian717. Also, I see no discernible deletion rationale given above. WP:SNOWBALL may well be applicable. Haus^Talk 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we delete one, we have to delete all which will probably ignite a huge edit war. - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ofc. Speed74 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into parent Czech Airlines article. That article is only 10kB readable prose size, so splitting off this child article was way premature. The fact that in the future that might be necessary doesn't mean it should be done now, which splits up the presentation of information to the reader. The list can be formatted better and presented in 40% less space as well. The most potentially encyclopedic aspect to the current article is the unfortunately totally un-sourced historical destinations section, which is too bad. I'm totally in favor of including such information in Wikipedia, but I fail to see the reason that for this specific airline the encyclopedia is better with the split. Please remember that while many airlines have an associated destinations list many do NOT, many because they shouldn't, and the question here is should this specific list exist.

Regarding the statement that "no discernible deletion rationale given", I think it is quite the opposite. I do not see a single Keep !vote above that has a rational to keep based on policy or guide. This might be the moment I finally understand the point of the essay WP:OTHERSTUFF, because I always hated it before. It doesn't say its prohibited to make comparisons to other existing articles, the first thing I always do, but it is about judging an AfD on its specific merits. Merging this article into the parent does not mean or require anything be done to any other similar list (a straw man that I contributed to).

User:Seraphimblade questioned WP:NOTABILITY, and I think that is always the best argument for a Keep !vote, but no one has argued against him. Pan Am's historic route destinations? Obvious notable. For Czech Airlines this has not been shown. I think I disagree with him on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially in this case where the the airline's website doesn't have a list AFAIK, just a graphic. I believe this article should be merged back into the parent until a time it is appropriate to split based on either size (not close to being met) or content (not a single argument of notability above) per WP:SPLITTING. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--the article is long enough to stay on its own. Maybe we could merge it into Czech Airlines article, but I think that this is long enough to warrant keeping separate from its parent article. Also, it is standard practice to have airline destination list articles. If this article was shorter, ie you could read it while barely having to scroll up and down, then I would say merge. But since it's longer than that, I say Keep. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - After thinking about it more and reading some other comments here, I think it might make more sense to merge it, considering the parent article itself is not as long as others I've seen and this destination list would fit in just nicely (though we might want to reformat it as a collapsible table to save space). And besides, the WP guidelines say the "We've always done it this way" argument isn't a valid argument in a deletion discussion--Wikipedia guidelines trump everything else. I've changed my mind and now I believe it should be merged. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The closer of this discussion should be aware of the following comment: [1]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the relevant Wikiproject that the article is within the scope of is not in any manner canvassing and should always be encouraged. --Oakshade (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed there, Wikiprojects tend to be partisan. Maybe if it's a reputable one like MILHIST, but a lot tend to bloc-vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you disagree with WP:AFD which encourages notifying the relevant projects. From WP:AFD:Notifying WikiProjects that support the page:

"WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD."

There was nothing un-neutral about the project notification in this case.

And your comment is a colossal attack on the good faith of all Wikiprojects. Please provide evidence that the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines have demonstrated a systemic practice of "bloc-voting." Members of Wikiprojects are much more knowledgeable than most on the subject and can provide better insight as to the validity of a stand-alone page. If you'd like to completely change WP:AFD to not only discourage notification of Wikiprojects of articles under their scope but to even ban them, you need to make your case on the AFD talk page, not try to change it and create your own "rule" in a single afd. --Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, why is it a bad thing to mention an AfD discussion on a WikiProject talk page? It attracts people who are part of the project to come and participate in the discussion. User:Oakshade has got it right on the dime, and he/she is making a good point. I can say for myself that if this AfD discussion hadn't been posted on the Wikiproject, I would never have commented here. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Seraphimblade, I don't know if they are "reputable" (that Aviation-project party MilborneOne threw last weekend was SICK and DISGUSTING). But my experience has been that when editors have come over to an AfD based on notices posted on the Aviation-project pages they have been slightly more critical of inclusion than average (probably a good thing). This AfD is running counter to the norm I believe. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Then I presume you're prepared to present the substantial coverage in reliable sources regarding the destinations of this airline, rather than the We've always done it this way argument? What I'm seeing here is the typical definition of ownership and a bloc "vote". If this article is justifiable, there are reliable sources that cover its subject in depth, if not, it is indefensible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He he. There are a good number of articles with no coverage at all that seem to stay up for no reason. In this case it is consensus/common practice to split the destinations list into a separate article to avoid the main article being too enlarged by the destinations list. So the only refs needed here are those that prove the destinations, for notability we can look back at the airline and I do believe Czech Airlines is notable. Speed74 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is encyclopedic information which is to large to practically fit in the parent article. —SW— ^confabulate 00:17, 10 December 2011 (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.