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 all. Sandstein (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1[edit]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Also includes

• List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per this deletion review this AFD and those for terminals 2 and 3 have been relisted after an improper close. Previous AFDs shown below. We will stick to one discussion for all 3 lists As this is an administrative nomination no opinion on the outcome is offered Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Just so editors fully understand what transpired. These articles were created less than 2 weeks ago. Up to two weeks ago, all the Manchester Airport destination lists were included in the Manchester Airport article, just like all commercial airport articles (the destination list was included since December, 2004). A peer review of that article suggested separating the destination lists into these "daughter articles" for length purposes. That's what this AfD is for, only these new "daughter articles", not the content in the Manchester Airport article. --Oakshade 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 'clarification' has been added after the comments below and is contested. Regan123 00:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete back to the original article. The creation of these articles is the result of specific feedback concerning consideration of the parent article as a good article. This recommendation ignored the fact that including these lists in the parent article is the standard for airport articles as the standard style. Also this advice was to create a new article for each terminal. If this guidance was to become the norm, it would result in the creation of thousands of new articles, many of them never more then a stub. So the advice may in fact create a bigger problem that the one it is trying to solve. The airport project is looking at the issue of displaying this data in a format that that would not create thousands of articles and still reduce the visual impact on the article which appears to be the driving force behind the decision. Since a change like this affects thousands of articles, it is not one that will be made based on comments like these. The project would like to do this as reasonably as possible so that we do not need to keep changing the layout if it is implemented without having addressed all possible issues. That requires discussion and consensus. Vegaswikian 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't merge and delete. ~ trialsanderrors 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Vegaswikian 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we merge content we have to preserve the edit history for licensing reasons. So we have to set a redirect from the old article to the new one. ~ trialsanderrors 19:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source of the information is the article it is being merged back into so the edit history only resides there! Vegaswikian 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll let the closer disabuse you of that notion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • GFDL requires us to preserve the source of the contribution to GFDL- that is, the editor, not the underlying source that the editor relied upon. "Merge and delete" is forbidden (unless you take some other extraordinary action to preserve the contribution history). Rossami (talk)
            • Actually, the measures necessary are not that big of a deal. I have written up an essay about this at Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Chick Bowen 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as separate or delete, but do not merge back. Detail like this clutters up main articles. The Manchester Airport article is far more readable without it or collapsible tables etc.Regan123 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Striked original comment and changing to delete per WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA. I have been persuaded by the others. Regan123 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as worthless trivia, which was my initial argument. But, to amplify: WP:IINFO. The airport itself is notable; a general summary of its destinations (x cities in y countries mainly in z regions) is desirable (and by the way, that already is in the article), but this level of detail is not. We are not a travel manual, but an encyclopedia. General information on the airport is notable; the fact that Pegasus Airlines flies to Bodrum out of its second terminal, or that Flybe goes to Norwich out of its third, is simply not encyclopedic material. Plus, no references, so this could be all made up. Biruitorul 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content is actually not in the current Manchester Airport article. It was, but a peer review suggested separate articles be made to conserve space. As for the listing the destinations in the airport article, that would be in line with every commercial airport article. --Oakshade 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One way ticket to Deletion City. Way too much detail - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Clarityfiend 02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for trying to imitate Expedia! Eddie.willers 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be acceptable for Wikitravel --Emesee 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - while the list of destinations may not be indiscriminate information, it is complete overkill and doesn't appear to have any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. I don't even think there is a sensible case for listing all destinations in a main airport article. - fchd 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every commercial airport lists the airports' destinations. Do you know of a change of consensus on this? --Oakshade 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete as per Vegaswikian. MilborneOne 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge into the Manchester Airport article as all destinations lists are in the airport aritcles. Every commercial airport article lists the destinations and there's no reason to single the Manchester Airport article out to delete that content, especially that it's such a major and important airport. --Oakshade 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then Delete - the information. Rudget _zŋ 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above why "merge and delete" is an invalid combination under GFDL. Rossami (talk)
    • Delete - per only acceptable option. Merging and then deleting the page history is invalid per above comments. Rudget _zŋ 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Majoreditor 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the current status as unsourced. Delete and replace with a link if the information is wholly sourced from the Manchester Airport website. Keep only if the information is compiled from various sources and someone makes an effort to include them. ~ trialsanderrors 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are suggesting that we add hundreds of sources to the references section for each of these entries? Each city would need to be referenced on its own since not everything under one airline is from one source. Vegaswikian 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information is sourced from multiple sources, generally the airlines themselves. This level of information is not easily available from any single existing source. Vegaswikian 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm suggesting to delete this as inherently unreliable content. Of course if someone goes through the effort to make it reliable by citing the sources then it would meet our policy requirements. As it is, a reader cannot tell whether the information is up to date or if any hoax entries have been sneaked in by a vandal. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every commercial airport article has this content. Are you suggesting every destination list in every commercial airport article be deleted? --Oakshade 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes unless it's sourced information. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you truly feel that way, then start with the top; delete all the content of O'Hare International Airport#Terminals, airlines and destinations.The destination list is totally unreferenced. And then move to London Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations and remove the entire destination list there since it's also totally unfererenced. Since every commercial airport article has an unreferenced destination list, you might as well start your massive Consensus change from the top, unless of course you don't really feel that way. I'll be watching. --Oakshade 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm asked to voice my opinion here. There is no other obligation for me that arises out of it. ~ trialsanderrors 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • So if you don't care to delete ANY commercial airports unreferenced destinations section, why are you singling this airport's destinations section out for deletion? --Oakshade 04:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So again, you don't have a problem with the length of the article when you wind up adding the sources in the references section? The length of the references will greatly exceed the length of the lists themselves. Given the logic, takes too much space, for pulling this information out of the article your solution seems to be to use more space. Vegaswikian 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Length is a style issue. Policy trumps style anytime. We don't not-source because of cosmetic considerations. ~ trialsanderrors 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory of links (internal or external) and for being an unsourcable (as a list) and unmaintainable list. This is a useful way for travel agencies to organize information - it is not a useful way that encyclopedias organize information. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Vegaswikian above. V-train 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE ALL LISTS ON ALL COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS - I moved the useless information into sub-articles as it is just that USELESS! I believe that ALL LISTS on ALL AIRPORT articles needs to be deleted. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TRAVEL GUIDE - true so lets delete the lists from ALL airport articles. The lists are totally un-sourced - true so lets delete ALL the destinations lists from airport articles. The people coming on here declaring it should be deleted are obviously not looking at the bigger picture, the airports project specifies that ALL commercial airport articles include a list or destinations and even provides a style guide for them. They are not notable and can never be totally up to date with air travel changing all the time. Just deleting these lists is not going to impact Wikipedia at all, the rest of the airport articles are filled with totally useless lists of destinations which do nothing to add to the quality of the article, nor the style. They are simply acting as 'filler' to bulk out many airport articles and if removed they are exposed as being very limited indeed. A list of airliners, possibly in prose with history of their emergence at the airports is acceptable but this ludicrous list of destinations is total nonsense. We simply cannot just delete these lists as the airports project is just going to shove the list straight back on the main article as it is their 'policy' for the style of articles. Anybody who calls this 'trivia' or anything implying it is 'useless information' is also saying that it should be removed from all the airport articles and nobody seems to be picking up on this yet it is screamingly obvious to me. And...Breathe out... Thank you. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destinations by airline do not change all that often. Frequency changes all of the time. Likewise continuation flights thought hubs change there final destinations all of the time which is why they are generally not listed at the originating airport as a destination. So in the end, this information is fairly static. Vegaswikian 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They change more often than a lot of airport articles are updated and these lists are subject to constant vandalism and for what? An un-encyclopædic list filling up airport articles providing nothing of note to readers, this is an encyclopædia and is used by people for research purposes, not by people thinking about taking a holiday and looking for ideas of where to go... I would love to know why you think these lists are of use to anybody? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did 'constant vandalism' become a reason not to have information? Vegaswikian 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to the question of who reads them. Many users. A point that has been clearly voiced over time. Try finding the information here in another source. A few airports might provide it, but most don;t nor do the traval websites. Vegaswikian 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And-Rew, you need to make your case at WikiProject Airports and WikiProject:Aviation as likely deleting these specific terminal articles will not at all change the long Wikipedia practice of listing airlines and destinations in all commercial airport articles. Oh, and in my opinion in contrast to yours, LISTS OF AIRLINES AND DESTINATIONS ARE EXTREMELY ENCYCLOPEDIC, that's why WP:CONSENSUS has always had them in existence without contention. --Oakshade 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has clearly changed on these matters. Restoring the information and removing the links to the (still) existing articles before closure of this debate is not appropriate. Regan123 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a WP:CONSENSUS link to the Consensus Can Change section. Where is the evidence of the "clearly changed" consensus on destination lists of all commercial airport articles? (Citing only this AfD is not at all a sign of consensus change BTW).--Oakshade 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has changed on the list for Manchester Airport. Above are 8 delete or comment !votes that say delete altogether. 4 are for keep in some form. Consensus no longer exists on this article regardless of what other articles have Regan123 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion for specifically this terminal article, not the Manchester Airport article. That's where you need to build a consensus to make such a major change to something that has been in place since 2004. The editors of the that article are there, not here. --Oakshade 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this information was taken out of the main Manchester Airport article. It's just not encycloapedic, it's not particularly important at this sort of level. A specialist wiki, or the airport's own website would be more appropriate for this level of detail. And for me, that would apply to any airport under the sun. But we're only discussing this article here. Contributors to the main Manchester Airport article are as welcome to contribute to this debate as anyone else. - fchd 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was taken out for size reasons, not because it was considered "un-encyclopedic." (Read the Manchester Airport Peer Review which explicitly suggests creating a "daughter article" with the list). Never has there been a commercial airport destination list deleted. Never. For a such a colossal change (and it would be colossal) in in content such as removing destination lists from all commercial airport articles, there needs to be a major change in consensus with dozens, if not all commercial airport articles, starting perhaps at WikiProject Airports, not just one article. If an editor (or two) decides to delete the content from the Manchester Airport article and that article alone, I would be vehemently opposed to it as I'm sure most regular Manchester Airport editors would be. If there's a consensus change with all commercial airport articles, I won't have issue. --Oakshade 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally nom'd because User:Vegaswikian wanted the contents moved back to the main article. Fair enough. Also, regardless of why it is was moved, the debate has moved on here, to should we keep it all, which is clear from the comments above. However the contents are being discussed above for deletion. If this AfD closes as delete then merger back would not be appropriate. As myself and others have said, because something is decided for other articles does not justify it here. If the AfD closes as merge, then whilst I strongly agree, will accept that consensus. Also, I have adjusted my !vote above and marked it as such. Regan123 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regan123, you would have to gain consensus at the Manchester Airport article to delete the destination list. Period. --Oakshade 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly strong delete all - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide, listings guide or directory of any kind. I don't have any strong objections to the content being merged to a small section of the Manchester Airport article and/or reworded in an encyclopedic way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The information is not notable, or verified. It has no place in the airport article, much less in its own article. So it should be deleted. I (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these three and all similar. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a directory. Ravenna1961 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete As just said, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a directory. The material is not even well formatted and breaches the most fundamental guides on Attribution. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:57, 15 November 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.