Points of interest related to Norway on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Norway. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Norway|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Norway.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Norway/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Norwegian Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Norway related AfDs

Norway[edit]

Håvar Bauck

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

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Kenya, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There seems to be more than enough references that are reliable and the notability criteria is met with significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of each other to keep a posting about Håvar Bauck .I think that the page certainly is within the realm of the spirit of Wikipedia. Felixgfive (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

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

Long, unsourced list of translations. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and even if it were, these are mostly unsourced::

Why have you linked to this discussion from the Cornish exonyms article ? Tewdar 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway , my opinion on the 'X exonyms' articles: delete the fucking lot, or delete none of 'em. Just don't single out Cornish for deletion, like some legacy admin. Tewdar 23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it from Cornish exonyms because I was rolling a whole list into one nom. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've temproraily blocked Tewdar for the personal attack above. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attack in what Tewdar wrote: what exactly did you mean? Athel cb (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against whom was the personal attack supposed to be? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this on Tewdar's talk page. Please continue any discussion about the block there. Sandstein 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this, and I still consider it absurdly sensitive to call "like some legacy admin" a personal insult. A (trivial) generic insult, maybe, but not directed to any particular named person, so not a personal insult. Athel cb (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#48 hour block of Tewdar by Sandstein Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourced (WP:V), WP:NOTDIC. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar has a valid point, most of the attacks are by EDL types who insist on airbrushing out first nation Cornish ethnicity, language etc. So not surprisingly there will always rightly be reactions against racism, racism in any form is never OK. 85.94.248.27 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for the reasons given. As the Cornish article is specifically mentioned above, I had a look at it, wondering what the exonym for Devon (the neighbouring county and my birthplace) was. It's not there, though there is one for the more distant Somerset! Plymouth (fair enough) and Exeter are there, but given the great number of places in Devon to which Cornish people (including my great^12 grandfather Robert Cornyshe) moved over the centuries (that's why "Cornish" is a common surname in Devon) there must surely be other exonyms. This suggests that it is just a haphazard list of the ones the creator happened to know. Athel cb (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Latin list, at least; it's actually useful, and you can't just look these up in a dictionary; you'd need quite a lot of sources to hunt them all down, if you could even do it, and that's just not practical. It should, however, be fairly easy to document individual entries knowing what the equivalents are, and that's just cleanup, for which there is no deadline. AfD is not cleanup. For that matter, many of the entries could simply be linked to articles about the places, that already give their Latin names in the article leads. The Latin names are relevant in a way that those in many of the other languages may not be, because most or all of these places were settled or colonized in Roman times, and are found under their Roman names in sources about Roman history.

I can't offer much of an opinion on the other lists nominated here, because I don't know much about those languages or the reasons why the lists exist, but as a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I feel confident that the Latin list has a good reason to exist. I was going to say that the Greek list has a similar justification for keeping, but looking at it, most of the places included are modern names for places that didn't exist as part of the Hellenistic world; this distinguishes it from the Latin list, which consists primarily of places that had Latin names in Roman times. P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it add anything beyond Category:Lists of Latin place names? (Genuine question.) PepperBeast (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think organization by place (most of the lists of Latin place names) makes more sense than organization by linguistic type (...by exonyms). Therefore, I think the place names in Latin exonyms should be merged to the other lists before deletion. That said, delete all, per WP:NOTDICT. Exonyms for an individual place may be interesting, significant, or notable. And we should definitely mention famous exonyms like 旧金山 somewhere. But having a list of them seems more like a geographic-dictionary thing than an encyclopedia-thing, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like they overlap to the extent that merger is practical. I haven't gone through the whole list to check, but whoever merges the list presumably would. Ironically, however, despite frequently needing the Roman names of various places, I don't think I've seen these lists before, and wouldn't have today had it not been for this discussion! P Aculeius (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill them all, let Deletionpedia sort them out, for the reasons stated. High time. I have asked on many of their Talk pages what use (or interest) they have, and got a few replies to the effect that they are useful, but none of them said clearly how they are useful. —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, shouldn't the heading say "(nth nom.)"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep all the pages. If a language learner wishes to have a list of place names, there should be a readily available list, considering that exonyms and endonyms can have wildly different names in between languages. While the individual pages can be edited so that they are more reliable, it would be extreme do completely obliterate entire pages worth of information instead of simply pruning them. GodenDaeg (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't reliability or usefulness. Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I checked and https://language.fandom.com/ exist. Good place to send these too. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at its front page? It's for "Philosophy and Science of Language", not for language study. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see its been abandoned for years. I did ask the founder of it to give me administrative rights to copy everything over, but no response yet. Since it is abandoned, anyone can adopt it, then move things over. I have too many fandoms already, someone who cares about languages can go to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Adoption:Requests and adopt it. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't List of European exonyms be on this list? —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or TNT-delete them all. Many of these articles have the potential to become encyclopedic content. Exonyms can tell a whole story of historical international relations, and for some of the languages we could present these stories in an OR-free manner based on reliable sources. But the way these articles are currently shaped (i.e. as lists), little or nothing is told about what is actually interesting about exonyms. Even List of Pokémon characters is more encyclopedic than every single one of these exonym articles, except maybe for Arabic exonyms, which has some very interesting material that is scattered unsystematically over various sections (because the exonyms are ordered by the least interesting criterion, viz. by modern countries). –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always pleasant to find someone agreeing. (I pushed, once upon a time, for Arabic exonyms to be restricted to "interesting" cases.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms I have substantially rewritten Chinese exonyms to contain more substantial encyclopedic content that is too long and not entirely relevant to be contained in Chinese language#Vocabulary. This includes information about the historical origins and changes to certain Chinese exonyms, with appropriate citations from academic sources (I will need to do more digging in Chinese sources to find more). I am open to researching and writing more content, as well as reviewing and greatly shortening the list in the article, but I am reluctant to do more work while this article is in AfD. Still, I think that there is enough right now to warrant keeping it. Richard Ye^talk 13:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Ye (talk · contribs), thank you so much for your improvements to Chinese exonyms! I deeply appreciate your hard work and your interest in continuing to improve the article were it not at risk of being deleted. Here are two relevant guidelines:
  1. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  2. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
  Can you find two reliable sources that discuss the concept of Chinese exonyms? If two reliable sources can be found, we will have a very strong case for keeping Chinese exonyms.
  Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It may be preferable to have WP:THREE. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Only to User:Roy Smith, whoever he is. That's the guy's personal essay on his talk page, not any form of anyone's policy. — LlywelynII 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be preferable to me to have 3 independent, reliable sources which each provide significant coverage of the article topic; for the reasons outlined by Roy Smith in their essay. It may also be useful to other uninvolved editors who, like me, have yet to opine. I made (and make) no representation that the linked essay is a policy, guideline, or anything other than what it is. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Here are some secondary, academic sources on Chinese exonyms as a distinct topic (not on a specific exonym or on Chinese foreign relations).
  On the general construction and form of Chinese exonyms:
  - Pierre de La Robertie, Le nom propre en chinois. Essai de morphosyntaxe (Chinese proper nouns: an essay on morphosyntax), Corela -- see section 2.3 on Exonyms
  - Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
  - Liu Lian’an, Gao Yu and Ji Yuan, New Developments in Formulating the Transformation Guidelines of Geographical Names from Foreign Languages into Chinese, Eleventh United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names
  On the history and evolution of Chinese exonyms:
  - Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century, Social Text, Duke University Press.
  - Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia, Working Paper
  - Yao Dali, 河西走廊的几个古地名 (Several ancient place names in the Hexi Corridor) , originally published in 西北民族研究 (Northwest Journal of Ethnology)
  - Chen Dong, 论国名与国号 (On country names and representations of country names) , Journal of Xiamen University (Arts and Social Sciences)
  Richard Ye^talk 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is excellent work, thank you! I've supported keeping Chinese exonyms below. Cunard (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now essentially rewritten the article. I have now greatly abbreviated the list in Chinese exonyms to "notable" exonyms only (though a few still lack citations, which I am slowly chasing down). The article is now otherwise fully cited from the notable, academic sources I've listed above. I hope this can convince fellow Wikipedians that a Keep decision is warranted for this article. Richard Ye^talk 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, thank you again for your hard work on this! Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the List of Azerbaijani exonyms: I agree with the idea that most of the exonyms in all lists of exonyms are fantasy or fiction, but if you go down a little you will see how many sources are given, for example to List of Azerbaijani_exonyms#Russia, this happens because Russia changes the name of cities as soon as it conquers it. And even now, during the war in Ukraine, you can see this, for example, the fact that Russia renamed the Ukrainian Bakhmut to Artyomovsk. Most of the exonyms are historical and I find the use of this list useful in historical reconstructions. I could remove all the "garbage" from the article if we agreed to leave the list. Sebirkhan (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on Russian renamings in general? That would seem the more appropriate place for such entries. To preserve List of Azerbaijani exonyms for this reason would be like buying peanut butter so that the jars can be used to store rice; and unless the title is changed, it will attract the same cruft that led to this discussion. —Tamfang (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all - We need to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK here, and cases are being made for keeping individual pages, but not the full set. It is clear these have WP:NOTDICTIONARY issues per nom. Also, per Austronesier, there are articles that could be written about exonyms, but those arguments are not for these list articles. It is at least possible that some (especially those being argued for) could be rewritten as encyclopaedic pages, although I don't think any of them are there yet. If we draftify them then the ones with potential can be developed and submitted for review, and may become useful articles. The ones that are unloved and untouched will be deleted. This outcome would be superior to delete, which would delete some good information on a couple of the articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about deletion sorting: I added this AfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China. Would an editor who is experienced in deletion sorting add this AfD to the relevant lists? This will inform editors who are experienced in the various languages about this AfD and give them an opportunity to improve the articles. Wcquidditch (talk · contribs), you added deletion sorting templates to this AfD. Would you be able to help or know where to post to ask for help? Thank you.
I recommend a relist to allow a full seven days after the deletion sorting is done.
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the articles to the country delsorts. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jumpytoo! Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about glossaries: The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide says: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook."
The guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says:
Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia. A Featured example is Glossary of Texas A&M University terms. Stand-alone glossaries are categorized at Category:Wikipedia glossaries, as well as topically in article categories. Shorter ones are often better handled as embedded lists, though a redirect from a title like Glossary of X can be created to the section, and the redirect added to that category. Such embedded glossaries may split later into in stand-alone glossaries. (See WP:Summary style for information on when to split sections into child articles.) There are multiple ways of formatting glossaries. See § Titles for naming conventions.
Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"), may be better suited to Wiktionary. Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries. Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace.
Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited.
Are these articles considered glossaries?
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any reasonable meaning of the term "glossary". The lists, broadly, do not contain definitional information; nor are they limited to terms related to a specific, notable, domain of knowledge. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says: "Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited." So that is the guideline to follow. If "reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited", then encyclopedic pages can be created from these "non-glossary lists of words". Cunard (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're being too polite/deferential. The only thing RE's comment clarified was that their opinion is mistaken. Geographical terms in a foreign language is quite clearly a specific notable domain of knowledge. The fact that it's an interesting and needful topic is precisely why they were created in the first place, aside from its utility to gamers and its poor (and unable to be improved) handling at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII 03:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lists in the articles that I reviewed are not of geographical terms, but of place names. Exonyms (and endonyms) in any given language might well be a specific notable domain of knowledge; and we would look to reliable sources to evidence that. But the individual exonyms would then be the subject of that domain, not the terms of that domain.

By comparison, we might have a glossary of arithmetical terms, but we would not have a "glossary" of natural numbers; we might have a glossary of social science terms, but we would not have a "glossary" of individual's names.

There may be good reasons for these articles to be kept; some may even be based in policy, but glossary isn't one of them. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms per the significant coverage in reliable sources in academic journals and books found by Richard Ye (talk · contribs). The sources definitively show that Chinese exonyms passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
Richard Ye has already make substantial improvements to Chinese exonyms that demonstrate this is an encyclopedic topic, not just a list of dictionary definitions. Chinese exonyms can be improved through pruning and expansion. But that can be done at any time as I understand with Richard Ye's reluctance in improving the article while at AfD. Several times I've spent hours improving an article at AfD in the past only to have the article get deleted.
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese exonyms per Jumpytoo. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Japanese exonyms is extensively referenced to academic sources and discusses the topic in detail. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms per User:Cunard – there are a lot of Chinese-specific considerations about exonyms in general that are now discussed in some detail in that article. No opinion about the other articles. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Vietnam, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese exonyms, likely bad bundle, for the Japanese article speficially the Japanese version is very well cited, and is extremely likely to meet WP:GNG. Since we now have 2 articles that clear the bar, I think it's not appropiate to do these articles as a bundled AfD, it should be nominated individually. Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Way too many nominated articles to give a proper review and joint decision on all. Anyways, keep.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a Procedural Keep as opinion is divided between those editors asking for all articles to be treated similarly (whether that is Delete all, Draftify all or Keep all) and those editors arguing for individual articles to be Kept. That is one dilemma with large, bundled nominations like this, unless there is an overwhelming consensus for one particular action, they can fall apart. It's also clear that editors asking for "All" anything have not had the time to evaluate each article individually and given the arguments from editors asking for individual articles to be Kept, they obviously differ in quality and substance leaving me questioning any closure that paints them all with the same brush.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, unbundling will result in "Why are you picking on my pet language and ignoring dozens of others?" (even if they are all separately nominated) —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The encyclopedic content of these articles vary widely. I see the point in attempting to have one discussion about the principle, but I don't think it's doable, as shown above. /Julle (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The only reservation I have is regarding languages that do not have their own WP forks. Otherwise why would you have Spanish exonyms on English wiki when Spanish wiki already does that!? XMcan (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once when I raised that point, I got the reasonable reply: suppose I want a Greek exonym but cannot read Greek? —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the "List of" nominations except List of Russian exonyms are actually redirects and should be corrected. Nickps (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that Latvian exonyms, Old Norse exonyms and Slovenian exonyms which are also redirects. Nickps (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty to fix those myself. Let me know if I wasn't supposed to do that. Nickps (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As seen above, there are way too many considerations about the individual articles to handle in one AfD. It's also clear that no one looked at every article. All the participants missing that a bunch of redirects ended up in an AfD nomination for a week shouldn't have been possible. Nickps (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption we missed these and therefore did not look at all the lists at all is incorrect. I did not register that as important. It is the content that is being considered. I did look at all of them. I did not look into detail of their sourcing and individual potential sourcing, because that would have taken many hours. That was why I suggested draftify all. I do not think any of these are encyclopaedic as they stand, as we are in NOTDICTIONARY territory, but individual cases are being made for individual pages, and it is likely some would make individual cases for others. I am not convinced that the individual cases are answering the NOTDICTIONARY aspect as things stand, but draftify would allow individual pages to be very quickly reviewed and republished - it would simply recognise that there is a concern to be addressed. It appears to be a good process for allowing that individual scrutiny without defaulting to a keep option that basically says that bundled nominations are impossible. I will say, however, that failing draftify, I oppose delete. Draftify all is my preference. Keep would be acceptable, but disappointing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was a bit too eager with my conclusions. Then again, that wouldn't have happened were this a reasonably sized AfD.

Now, onto the actual argument, draftify all to me sounds like, "delete in 6 months". Lithuanian exonyms, for example, had no edits for a year prior to the nom and that's on mainspace. Others were untouched for even longer. We could get it done faster with separate AfDs, even if we spread them across a few months so we don't overwhelm the venue. I also think the specific examples should be kept in mainspace and improved there, so a procedural keep still seems like the best solution. Nickps (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...draftify all to me sounds like, "delete in 6 months...

Because that's all it ever is unless there's a specific editor making the request to preserve something. It shouldn't even be a thing as a policy. In this case, like you're saying, the articles should just be left active until they're separately nominated. — LlywelynII 02:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Latin, Chinese and Japanese exonyms are clearly notable. I'm not sure about the rest. Some can be draftified, but some are heading to deletion. This keeps coming up on my AfD feed. Can we put it to sleep and start over in April? Bearian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think anyone has said this explicitly: Exonyms are interesting if they are not trivial examples (among innumerable) of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words, including placenames, to its own phonology and orthography. Interesting ones are worth preserving. If they are not segregated by language, perhaps they won't attract cruft, he suggested in passing. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for procedural reasons (baby/bathwater) and particularly for sourced info at the Arabic list. There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. That should be avoided as well: Draftspace for minor topics is just a slow bleed-out towards needless deletion of content helpful for our WP:READERS and in this case falls under WP:POINT. End this request altogether, nominate specific bad articles, and move on. — LlywelynII 02:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. There are two editors who suggested draftify, and I only repeated the point once in a reply to a comment after the relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — A. There clearly isn't consensus and what support ("delete all") votes there are seem to be either merely applying WP:NOTDICT without examining the articles, alternatives, or counterarguments or to be entirely mistaken ("unsourced" or "not a specific notable area of knowledge"). Can we get this closed? and get the actual bad articles separately and individually renominated?

B. For the curious, the WP:POINTily-enforced WP:NOTDICT alternative to these lists—which would be almost impossible for normal WP:READERs to find—would be the separate categories of exonyms by language at Wiktionary. The way they work can be seen at Category:Arabic exonyms: the lists are grossly incomplete, given in illegible foreign script without context or even transcription, and in the alphabetical order of those foreign languages. The way the application falls completely on its face can be seen at Category:English exonyms: they include terms like Kyiv and Curaçao as "exonyms" because one is isn't written in Cyrillic and the other doesn't have all of its Portuguese diacritics. It's completely unhelpful for any English-speaking reader looking for this information. These articles should be kept for the same reasons as Glossary of rhetorical terms and Glossary of ancient Roman religion unless they are literally only completely unsourced laundry lists. Anything else should just be kept in mainspace and allowed time to improve. — LlywelynII 03:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen–Nakamura rivalry

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

Fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:NOR starting with WP:SYNTH, as rumors and coincidences have been used to create a rivalry that simply does not exist in the real world, not in the way that we understand the term to mean when we say "X-Y rivalry". As it will be relevant in the discussion, I want to note upfront that chess24.com and chess.com are not independent sources when it comes to Carlsen and Nakamura, and they do not always take their journalism seriously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Article definitely fails mentioned categories above. A lack of impartial sources reporting on this topic as well definitely makes this article very dubious. This entire "rivalry" is more sensationalist tabloid than anything else, hoping to exploit the popularity of both players in recent years, rather than a genuine sports rivalry (e.g. Karpov–Kasparov). Zinderboff(talk) 14:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Norway, and United States of America. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
Strong keep or merge into two separate subsections on their pages. Notability is edgy but verifiability is there.

The topic itself is covered by non-chess RS here [1], here [2], here [3], and elsewhere.

If any of the details currently presented are SYNTH, deletion is hardly the answer.

Also, chess rivalries are not necessarily as savage as football rivalries. Chess is pure struggle, and not a physical one.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-chess newspaper found: [4]

How are the four sources I brought not WP:SIGCOV?

It’s unfortunate that the “keep” side doesn’t have the cabal-mobilization capabilities enjoyed most of the stadium sports WikiProjects…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CNN does indeed make a bizarre and extraordinarily exaggerated claim about their "must-watch encounters" being comparable to Messi vs. Ronaldo et al. However, there are no further reliable sources in the article about a "rivalry", only synthesis. The topic is not notable because the two players might have anticipated online blitz/bullet matches but are not comparable in an over-the-board format. Carlsen says "not really" to a comparison. Some other sources seem to exist e.g. Financial Times, but this is not the level needed for a standalone article (I'd expect books and academic articles written on the topic). There is no American-Soviet politics like with Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky. Chess.com is not independent of Nakamura as they are a sponsor and both of their streaming projects are financially dependent on each other. The Play Magnus Group article demonstrates that Chess24 and Chess.com are not financially independent of Carlsen. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm really not sure what the case is here. It's a well-sourced article including citations from varied reliable sources, both chess-focused and not, so very clearly passes the notability criteria even if one excludes chess.com/chess24 sources. The IndianExpress article cited by Bilorv only furthers to support the validity of the article and would be useful to add as a citation: Carlsen playing down the rivalry himself is irrelevant if a reliable source is reporting on the rivalry as existing- it's not up to the two players to determine the status of it. However, one thing I do think the article fails to make clear is that the reliable sources tend to focus on their rivalry in online speed chess in particular, rather than claiming a rivalry in classical over the board chess, so I do think it would be useful to reword the article somewhat to make the scope of it clear. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Bilorv. Schweinchen (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have far too many bad articles on rivalries that aren't actually rivalries. The sources here don't show this is an actual rivalry, just two good players who have played a number of games against each other. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bilorv and Usedtobecool. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either primary or don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that the sources "don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions" is incorrect- the CNN, FT, and IndianExpress citations all explicitly have the rivalry as a main focus of the articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the SIGCOV sources I linked? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with rivalry articles on Wikipedia is that we frequently get eager editors who create articles on rivalries because a couple journalists describe something as a rivalry. Most of the articles linked only discuss how Carlsen is playing Nakamura and then simply mention a rivalry without going into any depth about an actual rivalry in the Boca–River sense, just that the two players played each other again. Having reviewed the sources, I don't think that's necessarily enough to base an article on. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time if there are articles outside the "Carlsen played/will play Nakamura" context I might support keeping this at a different title. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like it would be worthwhile to point out that most of the attention to this article has probably stemmed from the fact that it was posted on reddit with negative commentary yesterday, and that most of the editors pushing for the article to be deleted are not regular editors of chess-related articles. I am concerned about the possibility of vote brigading. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This possibility does concern me, but I was rather surprised how many of the others have high edit counts.

In the case of Daniel Quinlan, he’s active at WP:RFPP so he almost certainly saw it there. Don’t know about the others.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Airways destinations

(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:

Other lists
List of Aegean Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Aeromar destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Aeroméxico destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Aeroperú destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Astana destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Canada destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Caraïbes destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air China destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Corsica destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air India destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air India Express destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Italy destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Malta destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Moldova destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Namibia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air New Zealand destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Serbia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Air Tanzania destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of AirAsia Group destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Alitalia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of All Nippon Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Allegiant Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Alliance Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of American Eagle (airline) destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Arkia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Austrian Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Avelo Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Azerbaijan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Azimuth destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Azores Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Belavia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of British Midland International destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Breeze Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Brussels Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Caribbean Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Cathay Pacific destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Cayman Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Cebu Pacific destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of China Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of China Eastern Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of China Southern Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Condor destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Copa Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Cubana de Aviación destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Czech Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of DAT destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Delta Air Lines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of EasyJet destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Egyptair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Emirates destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Emirates SkyCargo destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Ethiopian Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Etihad Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of European Air Charter destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Eurowings destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of EVA Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Fiji Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Flydubai destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Flynas destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Frontier Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Germania destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Germanwings destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Go First destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Gulf Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Hainan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Hawaiian Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Hong Kong Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Iberia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Icelandair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of IndiGo destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Interjet destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of IrAero destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Iraqi Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of ITA Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Japan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jazeera Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jeju Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jet Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jet2.com destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of JetBlue destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jetstar destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Jetstar Japan destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Kingfisher Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Korean Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Kuwait Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of LAM Mozambique Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of LATAM Airlines Perú destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of LATAM Brasil destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Lauda destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Loganair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of LOT Polish Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Luxair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Martinair Cargo destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Mexicana de Aviación destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Nepal Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Nigeria Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Smartavia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Nordic Regional Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of NordStar destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Oman Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Pacific Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Pakistan International Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Pegasus Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Philippine Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Play destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Pobeda destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Qantas destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Qatar Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Royal Jordanian destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Ryanair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of S7 Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Saudia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Scandinavian Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of SCAT Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Scoot destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Sichuan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of SkyUp Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of South African Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of SpiceJet destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Spirit Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of SriLankan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Sun Country Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Swiss International Air Lines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Swoop destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of TAROM destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Thai Airways International destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Tianjin Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Transaero destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Transavia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Tunisair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Turkish Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Turkmenistan Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of TWA destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Uganda Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Ural Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Utair destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Uzbekistan Airways destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of VietJet Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Vietnam Airlines destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Virgin America destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Virgin Atlantic destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Virgin Australia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Vistara destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of VivaAerobús destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of WestJet destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Wizz Air destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) List of Yakutia destinations (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views)

Other lists

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 WP:NOT. They are indiscriminate collections of every city that an airline has flown to at any point in its history. All destinations as of this month as well as all past destinations are included. Regarding the current destinations, this is the equivalent of looking at the airline's route map – or if one is unavailable, an aggregator of flight-schedule data like Flightradar24 – copying down all the cities, and pasting them on Wikipedia. The listing of every current destination also creates a catalog of the company's services, in this case all the places that readers can fly to on a given airline. If we try to keep the lists up to date, we'll be running a newsfeed of airline destination updates, which Wikipedia should not be doing.

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]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:49, 28 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:NOT violations (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, 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:NOTTRAVEL, either. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also incorrectly used here - these lists are by their very nature discriminate, because they have a fixed scope. Most of these fail 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 Norse Atlantic Airways where I spun off the list as its own article once it reached a certain length (as guidelined by 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 ChainChomp2's point). Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are cited I propose the correct action is to adhere to WP:SS editing guideline and 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: @ChainChomp2. (and well worded objectivity by @SportingFlyer ) I would also support a Merge solution as a psuedo reversing of 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 WP:NOT. They are 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 catalog of the company's services [WP:NOTCATALOG] - How so? Even on Point #1 of 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 five pillars, most of which are explicitly non-negotiable. Due to imperfections in human language and psychology no constitutional text will ever be unequivocal – interpretation is required. Due to our processes interpretation is left to the consensus of the wider community, and the various language versions are given latitude to hash out the specifics. Sometimes these interpretations are codified into 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:NOTDIRECTORY, which was the result of the close. I think that as written, an article like List of Icelandair destinations does present simple listings without context, and that most of these articles from 2018 were similar to that one - just a table with a list. I think most of us would agree it's difficult to see how List of TWA destinations is useful as written, and that those two examples violate WP:NOT. However, I think that can be clearly remedied for many of these airlines through prose - List of Belavia destinations isn't great, but it at least has started to provide context for the places where an airline flies, which is essentially necessary for understanding an airline's scope in an encyclopaedic manner - I do have at least a couple books, now in storage, which talks about airline fleets and destinations from a pre or early internet time, showing it's clearly within the scope of a "specialised encyclopedia." The other problem is WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often substituted for WP:IDLI - the sole problem here is that the information isn't properly contextualised. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 28 March 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]

Keep- Some of these articles have very extensive sourcing. I have spent countless hours over many years finding reliable sources for each entry for former cities that were once served by airlines in the past. This is why I'm trying to make improvements to Wikipedia to benefit the public at large. These lists have a lot of historical information combined together that you cannot find anywhere else. CHCBOY (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The few destinations which are particularly notable for some reason or other can be mentioned in the airline articles Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant point mentioned in an RfC for removing airport destination tables (and there are far more airport articles with their own lists than there were airlines with destination lists) was that if one tries to describe a few "notable" destinations with prose, who determines which or how many are "notable" and how many aren't? The contention in and of itself would lead to edit wars, or alternatively, once some destinations are described with prose, the full list isn't that far away. ChainChomp2 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have already done this quite well in the respective parent articles. Note how the Air India article incorporates destinations such as Trivandrum and Nairobi into the wider history of the airline, or how the Drukair page discusses the route to Gaya. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a travel agency for Airline List of destinations and such lists do not belong here. RangersRus (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists included in the proposal are for airlines that have since gone defunct or inactive, and would serve zero purpose as a travel agency or guide, nor would need constant updating going forward, such as the lists for Aeromar, British Midland International, Cyprus Airways (1947–2015), Mexicana de Aviacion, Pacific Airlines, Transaero, or Virgin America just to name a few. This would be in addition to the two off the top of my head that I recognized already being deleted, being the lists for Wow Air and Eastern Air Lines. Going to a website or aggregator as suggested in the proposal does not apply to them and an equivalent for their information does not exist. ChainChomp2 (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete most~~ Procedural keep Any article that is a simple listing of destinations at one point in time fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE, but I'm convinced properly sourced articles which include lists of historical destinations are encyclopaedic and can be kept, as the information demonstrates current and historical transport links between places, especially during the turboprop and early jet age. Historical encyclopaedias included current travel destinations from ports, for instance. The articles that can be kept include the British Airways list. Not entirely sure about others, but most of them do fail the first part. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this to be a clear delete. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if we re-ran that 2018 RfC. The biggest problem with these is that they lack context, and I'm not sure some can be properly sourced, but as noted I don't see any problem with keeping the good articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason is that this discussion has attracted more attention ~~from the members of WikiProject Aviation~~ than prior AfDs, which tended to cover minor airlines such as Flyglobespan and Avianca Costa Rica. This time, however, AfD notifications have been placed on the stand-alone lists of several major airlines.
~~I'm not saying that this is a bad thing; it's good to have more participation. Though I feel it's important to keep WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in mind.~~ Sunnya343 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC you're trying to enforce is six years old, wasn't the most well attended RfC in the world, and triggered an AN discussion where it was agreed the RfC didn't mean these articles should be bulk deleted, in part because these deletions are controversial. I've changed my !vote to a procedural keep since it's clear some of these need to be deleted, but some of these could be kept or merged, and it's also clear from this current discussion that we should probably take another look at the past consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily the case that I seek to enforce the RfC. Yes, I believe the RfC closure should be taken into account, as well as the subsequent AfDs. However, the outcome of this AfD should also rest on the argument I made at the top of this page, which is my own argument and is not identical to the closure of the RfC or the rationales of previous nominators. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Many of these articles have very informative and extensive lists. Some major airlines have lost their own articles already which were in combined deletions eg List of United Airlines destinations and the Lufthansa and American Airlines lists. When these were deleted there was no warning or notice on the actual pages affected.CHCBOY (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a notice found left on the WP:Airlines project talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Discussion_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_Airlines_destinations, as well as the standard notice on the appropriate destination list pages as well as transclusion to the appropriate categories. Coastie43 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree notice was properly given, but that AfD only ran a week, and I've often missed short but important discussions for a number of different reasons. There is a lot to keep track of on here! SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your !vote because you already !voted "Keep" above. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These lists show hubs, focus cities, bases, and terminated destinations. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have merely stated what is contained in these lists and not addressed notability. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm really sick of discussing this over and over and to wait for the outcome in order to continue editing these articles. I see many of the editors that express their opinions here never having edited any of these articles in the past. I have maintained many of these lists in the most up-to-date form. Do whatever you want, if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good. This is not the project it used to be a decade ago, when I had the time and the energy to argue against these nominations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer, this may sound patronizing coming from me. While WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument for the retention of these lists, I respect the work that people have put in to creating them. I have worked on them as well; for example I reorganized the List of Kingfisher Airlines destinations into a table and added references for all the former destinations.
Some of the lists include valuable references such as copies of pages in the now-unavailable FlightGlobal archive. I am going to copy them over to the talk pages of the respective parent articles so that they are conserved, regardless of the future of the stand-alone lists. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" if these lists are deleted overnight I quit Wikipedia for good" threatening to quit over 1 AfD? I've never seen that in all my years in AfD. Sounds like WP:EFFORT to me. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all empathise with a colleague expressing distress at losing literal hours of hard work. Regardless of our position on the scope of the encyclopedia. Draken Bowser (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise fully agreeing with User:Jetstreamer. What does wikipedia gain by destroying this well sourced materials. Axisstroke (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all,: per the nomination. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Orientls (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not only does it take time to keep track of every single destination an airline flies to, aside from the result of the 2018 RfC with violations in WP:NOT, it also seems unnecessary to make and keep these articles when the airline in question more than 90% of the time already lists these destinations and updates them on a regular basis. Any notable historical destination an airline may have flown to could be merged into the parent article if necessary for encyclopedic purposes. Lifetimelucid (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This "90%" statistic statement you've pulled out is entirely false, a quick internet search of the world's largest, most well-known airlines do not have databases of their destinations as comprehensive & clear as those found on Wikipedia. The maintenance required shouldn't be a factor in deleting these very valuable, useful tables. By that logic, anything that needs editing or alteration on Wikipedia should instantly be taken down. Maintaining articles is not the establishment of a newsfeed, therefore proving these tables are not in any WP:NOT violation. You yourself will not be required to maintain these articles, so the burden will not fall on you to make constant adjustements. There are those who do know which adjustments to make when & will do so effectively, thus keeping the information found on this encyclopedia accurate & up to date. You not seeing a reason to keep these tables up is not reason enough to deprive the rest of the public from seeking that information here. If it is irrelevant to you personally, simply disregard it but many find this information to be incredibly useful for a variety of reasons. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)— 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly Merge into all respective airline articles, this is good information especially relevant to the aviation industry. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things that may be relevant to the aviation industry (i.e. an indiscriminate catalog of flight destinations) are not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:NOTCATALOG. Pilaz (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not indiscriminate lists though - there's crystal clear inclusion criteria. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, a list of McDonald's restaurants in France would also have clear inclusion criteria... Sunnya343 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others. Taking as an example the headline List of British Airways destinations page, this seems to get an average 299 page views per day. That's lots of people who choose to come to English-language Wikipedia because they think it's the best source of information that they are looking for. Corporate web sites are aimed at making money for corporations - they are not about sharing freely available, accurate and transparent information - that's part of the reason for Wikipedia to exist. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE is about distinguishing between a statement saying "trains depart at 09:17, 09:47 and every 30 minutes to place X" from saying "there are trains to station X". I do not see anything on these pages saying the departure times or even the frequency of flights between destinations - only a list of destinations. The WP:NOTTIMETABLE states clearly that saying not just a list of destinations but also a frequence is allowed - it's just the exact time of departure which is discouraged. We are not talking about a page about somebody's pet cat, we are talking about deleting pages with substantive and non-offensive content which has been put together by volunteers over many years using a wide variety of reliable sources. When information changes, those volunteers find time to update the pages as quickly and as accurately as possible. Societies in the past have chosen to burn books because they were not deemed pure enough for what some people in a society wanted. History does not favour this approach. Pmbma (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Many of these pages were originally created 15 or more years ago with dozens or even hundreds of different people voluntarily giving their time since then for further edits because they thought this was useful information that should be easily available to all without any barriers or people trying to make money. Not one person - hundreds of volunteers all deciding that publishing this information was free would be beneficial to others." WP:EFFORT isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ This isn't the establishment of a newsfeed. Information is never a constant, there is new information about anything & everything everyday. The fact that alterations must be made to keep these pages up to date & accurate does not mean their deletion should come to fruition. By that token, the grand majority of the information found on all airline pages should be removed. New hubs constantly open, current hubs constantly close, alterations must be made to keep that information up to date as well, but that information shouldn't also be nominated for deletion. Same thing with the fleets, new types are introduced constantly, & retired just as constantly. That is no reason to remove the fleet articles either. This information is not in violation of any Wikipedia guidelines whatsoever & there is no reason in the slightest to take this down. If this information is irrelevent to someone, let those people disregard it, but it remains incredibly useful to many, for whatever reasons they may employ this, & Wikipedia is the sole place on the internet with databases as clear, concise & comprehensive as they currently appear. Should these articles be needlessly deleted, it would lead to the essential extinction of this information, as airlines themselves don't even post this kind of information because they know Wikipedia already has it up in very clear & easy to understand manners. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whilst you can make comments, you cannot vote more than once. I've struck your vote. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Airline articles where relevant, to find a balance between being discriminate and still including valuable info. FortunateSons (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with all previous 'keep' justifications. I outright don't think we should be deleting ANY information on ANY website on a scale such as this. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or otherwise Merge I agree with others to just "keep" the pages, otherwise if it's deleted, I think it's better to say we will "merge" to the main airline article or something. Drcarrot.phd (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There is no reason at all to take all this incredibly valuable information off this encyclopedia, which is where this information should always be kept safe, never at risk. Maintenance is necessary for the grand majority of articles at Wikipedia, but they don't signify the establishment of an official newsfeed. Information needs to be altered at times in order for it to remain accurate & as up to date as possible. Maintenance alone should not be a factor to consider when arguing an article should be taken down. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place where information can easily be brought up & researched thouroughly, which is exactly what some do with the information of airline destinations. If information can't be found on an encyclopedia, where then? Most airlines don't even have this information as clear & concise listed on their own websites because they know this is information worthy of being in an encyclopedia, & that Wikipedia is the perfect place for that. If this information is taken down needlessly here, it will indefinitely become extinct on the internet as there are no other websites that have as comprehensive of guides to airline destinations as Wikipedia does. This information must be kept alive here, it's its only home. 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi @2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A, There are already Wiki alternatives as as Wikia, where the deleted Airline destination lists, as well as current ones can be trans-wiki to their own dedicated Wiki. A number of fan communities has started their own wikis, which is a good host for Airline destination fans to maintain their lists, and can also be expanded on by their exact date, the aircraft type and so on. Typically information that may likely fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY on Wikipedia would be available to be posted on a dedicated Airline destinations Wiki(a) with dedicated administrators if they wish to start such a site. Coastie43 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting more than once is unproductive, please stop doing it. Q ^{T C} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per RFC decision and precedent of the other 260 lists so deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per justifications which had already been listed above. S5A-0043^Talk 13:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah shit, here we go again. We just had a large deletion discussion over airport destination and now it's airline destination? Many suggest to move the content to Wikia (or better yet, Wikidata) yet nobody has pointed exactly which website in Wikia caters to this need and nobody has said they're willing to put in the effort in assisting with the migration. If deleted before a Wikia site is set up, these contents are not readily available to be migrated off Wikipedia to Wikia. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTCATALOG and the global consensus reached at the 2018 RFC cited in the nom. Frank Anchor 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we already reached a common consensus before. Plus the information is placed from good reliable sources and there is no harm in providing it. Plus it provides a uniform for anyone who wants to find out if an airline flies to it or not etc compared to other sources. Naren.Ayinala (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the RFC and policy seem quite clear on this, and I haven't seen any policy based arguments for keeping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above or Merge into the main airline article. UltraBlazer (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the 2018 RFC and the more recent RFC on such lists for airports . These lists fail NOTCATALOG, if not other parts of NOT. Notable destinations like hub cities or major ports should be documented as prose using what secondary or non primary sources say about such. External links to an airlines website can be added to the airline article to give a reader a way to look at the airlines' service map. Many of the keep votes are begging USEFUL or EFFORT, which are not valid reasons to keep. Masem (t) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse my 'stalking' of editors' contribution histories. By my count, 13 of the 17 people who have !voted Keep/Merge so far edit considerably in the aviation space, compared to 3 of the 16 people who have !voted Delete.
Don't get me wrong; the members of WikiProject Aviation are key stakeholders here. However, when people within a particular community on this site generally have one opinion, and those outside that community generally have another, we have to take WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnya343, I'm not sure what exact point you are trying to make. A closer takes all opinions, especially from experienced editors, into account. Opinions are not disregarded because the editor specializes in editing in a certain subject area, a closure is based on arguments put forth, relevant policy and sourcing. Closers don't do research into editors' background to find out where they choose to edit and I don't think spending your time doing this is helpful in coming to a discussion consensus which is the goal here. This is not a battleground where one side wins and another loses, we try to assess what outcome, among editors as a group, is best in line with Wikipedia's policies and their own preferences. I close many AFDs with results I don't agree with but the consensus is the consensus which we all need to live with. It could be that these articles are deleted or not. Perhaps such a large bundled nomination was not the best approach (it often isn't), but the discussion is what it is and as long as it is open, it continues to evolve. All I'm certain of is that I thought this discussion would be a SNOW close and clearly that outcome is not in line with the consensus any longer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Lenticel, my comment was inspired by what the closer of this 2018 deletion review said: By a wide margin, the AfD close is overturned. Even after identifying a few users who edit mostly in the airline space and discounting their arguments as biased, there's an strong consensus here to overturn.

I'm not saying that as an excuse, though. I apologize for reviewing people's contribution histories, that was not right to do and I went overboard. And you're definitely correct, it's the arguments that matter at the end of the day, not who is making them. I will strike my comment. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) I just realized that it might seem like I was calling out the closer of that deletion review; that was not my intention. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add, however, that I disagree with the view that bundling all of these lists into one nomination was a bad idea. This is the 25th AfD on lists of airline destinations. One prior discussion bundled 82 lists, another 120 lists. I don't know how many more times we want to talk about this topic, especially since I believe there is no fundamental difference between any of the lists. Another editor put it more bluntly in the July 2023 AfD, and I have to say that I concur: It’s time to solve the problem in one go and stop pretending there’s anything worth keeping in this category. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a biased and one sided view you present, you would do better to keep your distance to the discussion. First you start this proposal with a flawed assessment then you add zero arguments. I am changing my vote to Strong Keep based on the encyclopedic nature of the material. Axisstroke (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no disrespect to aviation enthusiasts. I myself spend most of my time on this site editing articles about airports. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sunnya343 can you just let the AfD run its course? What's with all the stalking and striking down of votes? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the !votes where posted more than once, thus a number of duplicate !votes were struck out by a number of editors. The editors concerned were notified on this talk page or own their own talk pages by the editors that have struck the duplicate !votes. Coastie43 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the RfC. As for those with issues on the effort was wasted in the creation of these lists. There is an airlines' Fandom (formerly Wikia). It can be transwiki'ed there unless there were attribution issues that I did not take into account. Other more detailed articles like those for Pokemons were transwikied to these sites before. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article gives context to British Airways main article, is referenced and unlike comments that this fandom, it is does not have this flight started here and runs at this time, which would be fandom. WP:NOT says Wikipedia does not require every piece of information, data or opinion that exists. This page does not have that (that would be a complete timetable), and when in context with the main article, which is well over the SPLIT level, shows the breadth of BA's range and size.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into the main airline article. SiniyaEdita (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The RfC was greatly flawed & should never have been binding. The consensus was only reached due to the fact that many believed these list would establish Wikipedia as a newsfeed, which is entirely untrue. If it were true, over half of the content found on Wikipedia entirely would need to be removed as much of that information also requires heavy maintenance & constant alterations. If today, Puerto Rico became the 51st state, the country's Wikipedia page would need to be altered to become more accurate & up to date, but according to very weak logic, this would transfrom Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a news source, so therefore the country's page should be taken down entirely, as it must also be changed everytime a new president takes office as well. The 2018 RfC was incredibly self contradictory & entirely counterintuitive. It renders the grand majority of information on this encyclopedia as news & not as simple information & therefore all that information should also be erased, but doing so would be incredibly foolish. The removing of all this useful information would be incredibly hypocritical, as where else are we supposed to seek information but from an ENCYCLOPEDIA? 2600:1700:9BCC:7810:1406:D05E:1342:A28A (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per RfC. It has been extensively covered how these pages violate numerous ideals of Wikipedia whereas most of the Keep votes center around the idea that all pages should be kept since somebody at some point put some effort into them, which taken to the logical extreme means no page should ever be deleted which is counter-intuitive to the intentions of Wikipedia. Q ^{T C} 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Thank you for your bold AfD. Articles like these are always out of date and better served by the website which is maintained by the companies they serve. The RfC and WP:NOT clearly apply. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per reasons above. RPC7778 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 previous votes are delete. You have presented zero arguments for keep. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the 2 previous votes above my statement, obviously. RPC7778 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, it is not at all apparent what you might be referrning to. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really have to specify which user's reason I support, though? I mean, some users have already made statements above that are very similar to mine. I'm unsure why I'm the only one getting called out. ~~RPC7778 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)~~ RPC7778 (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it's perfectly all right to refer to "the entirety" of arguments stated by either side of the argument. It is up to the closer to interpret what that means. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norway[edit]

Håvar Bauck

Afrikaans exonyms

Carlsen–Nakamura rivalry

List of British Airways destinations

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also