The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Airline Destinations[edit]

Livingston Airline Destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I cannot imagine how this information is encyclopedic—Wikipedia does not list other mass transit destination i.e. bus schedules or train schedules. GMS508 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precendent and move to Livingston Airlines destinations. The nominator's statement is incorrect, as WP does have similar listings; for example, American Airlines destinations, El Al destinations, Air France destinations, etc. -- Kicking222 02:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kicking222 is right there is precedent for listing airline destinations (though not bus or train destinations). My point was that I do not think this type of listing has any encyclopedic worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMS508 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Understood- I definitely see your point. Well, I'll stick by my !vote, as I do think these sorts of lists have some encyclopedic worth. However, if the consensus is that this is an indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, then delete the whole lot. You surely won't get a strong objection from me. -- Kicking222 14:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and nominate the others for deletion as well: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I'll be damned if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a directory. Merge into main article, possibly Citicat 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this AfD results in a delete, I'll nominate the others for deletion too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, all 171 of them! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a travel guide. If someone wants this info, the link to the company site is provided. Nuttah68 12:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with listings for American Airlines destinations, El Al destinations, Air France destinations. CyberAnth 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is the job of the Livingston Airlines webmasters. All this will ever be is an out-of-date mirror of a page on their website. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT indiscriminate or a directory. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jobjörn. - Aagtbdfoua 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with Cyberanth; they all should go. Akihabara 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel directory. I would support the deletion of all similar pages, and would like to offer thanks to editors above here for drawing them to our attention.--Anthony.bradbury 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Livingston Airlines. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Per WP:NOT, the whole entire lot of airline destination listings should be nominated for deletion. i.e., everything here. CyberAnth 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as said, I'll nominate the others in a batch if this one goes. As consensus seems to be delete, I'll put that AfD up tomorrow, using AutoWikiBrowser to add the appropriate template to the articles. I have even already written the AfD nomination ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You should be advised that the content of destinations by airline is maintained and dictated by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. As I feel the notability of airline destinations is between that of train stations and bus stops, I abstain. Tinlinkin 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Are you suggesting they should be notified, or that the entire case should be discussed there? Either way, I'll notify them on this AfD right now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, you already did that. Well then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles were split out of the airline articles since many of them are quite large so some guideline on what to split out was needed. The destination lists was one of the easiest to do since it can stand on its own. Note that this is not a list of routes which would be unmaintainable. The destination lists do not change all that much. If you force them back into the articles, then we will have to deal with oversize airline articles. Vegaswikian 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far, merging has not been proposed at all. We are speaking of deletion - no problem with oversized airline articles there! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Read up the list. I proposed it already. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this needs to go too: Airline destinations - every page there. CyberAnth 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not quite as notable as say a 200 year old school, and I am a bit concerned that there are not multiple non-trivial sources provided for this article, but if this can be appropriately sourced prior to the closure of this debate, I can support this. Silensor 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting information of a potentially historic value, if it can be sourced with reliable sources I see no reason this cant remain.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Who would be willing to cite these destinations? And how would they?(formerly user:GMS508)--Riferimento 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: several keeps on the condition that sources are provided... but no sources provided! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In almost every case, the source would be the airlines web page. So including an external link to that should cover WP:V and WP:RS. Added reference to article. Vegaswikian 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one wants to get picky; WP:V explicitly requires third-party sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That such a source is obviously not available (except for possibly listing the websites of every airport they fly too) makes this article fail the primary notability criterion cited in WP:N. However, that is not relevant to the concern of the nominator (and myself): the question is, is lists of airline destionations encyclopedic? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—in my state of residence the state mass transit authority publishes bus routes. Could a list of these stops listed on Wikipedia as bus route designations be considered encyclopedic?--Riferimento 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That depends on whether your state mass transit system operates on an international scale? John Vandenberg 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) relevant to this AfD? Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which includes nothing about being notable if operating on an international scale. And even if Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) WAS a relevant guideline, it says that an organization may be notable if it operates on an international or national level: just like Livingston Airlines. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful information of an international organisation; satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). John Vandenberg 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do you people even bother to read the guidelines you refer to? Even if Livingston Airlines was an organization and not a [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)|company/corporation]], it's still not relevant. And no matter what guideline, it fails this: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel reference. --Mus Musculus 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.