Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2018 February 8
2018 February 10 >

9 February 2018

[edit]
  • Adria Airways destinations – Overturn to keep. 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. And, of the people who argued for a specific alternative, there's clear consensus that it should be overturned to keep, as opposed to NC.
The primary issue here was that the close basically said, Policy was already established at a Village Pump / Policy discussion, and that trumps the consensus of the people discussing the issue here at AfD. That concept was soundly rejected in this review. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I haven't chased down all the collateral fallout of template cleanup. If folks could take care of those as they find them, I'd appreciate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are taken care of now. Hut 8.5 17:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adria Airways destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm starting this DRV following the suggestion made by Spartaz in their closure. The AfD follows the closure of a discussion held at AN, in which the closure of a VP discussion was challenged. All the relevant links are included in this AfD discussion. Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the original decision and keep all these articles. These lists are notable, as they reflect an essential portion of airline operations. These articles also have the potential to include the history of the introduction of services for a number of reasons (political, geographical, economical, etc.).--Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; keep all; as mentioned before airline destinations are the core of an airlines operation and show the scope of coverage. I don't see how the WP:NOTDIR arguement holds water; the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, that's a fact. Air France flies to Paris, that's also a fact (supportable by primary and tertiary references). These lists neither tell you how to book flights, how these destinations are connected, nor provide detailed scheduling information; they are essentially useless for any sort of travel guidance; but do contain an unrivalled source of historical information surrounding how airlines evolve over time. For comparison; destinations are essentially an airlines product. How does this list differ from the lists being deleted?. (As a side note; this could have all been discussed in the AfD rather than closing it and punting it here.) Garretka (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep all. There are quite a few issues here.
  • The closer's main argument is basically that the VPP discussion establishes a "wider consensus" that these articles should be deleted. As a participant in the original discussion, I was (naively) unaware that it was supposed to establish policy, and thought that it was asking for opinions (so I didn't go around and challenge everyone's argument). Now the "wider consensus" of fewer people than participated in this AFD is used to state they must be deleted. Surely this AFD shows there is not truly consensus on this issue?
  • A policy issue is where deletion of articles should be decided. The standard way to delete articles that do not satisfy the WP:CSD is through discussion at AFD. This discussion, while starting under a bit of a cloud of "no consensus should default to deletion", which isn't covered by any policy I am aware of, should be the main place that decides whether these articles should be kept or deleted. Unlike the Village Pump discussion, where a random subset of editors shows up (or not), AFDs are widely advertised in many neutral places (WP:DELSORT, wikiproject sites etc.) "Some people at the Village Pump think these articles should be deleted" is a very good reason to start an AFD, but it is not a particularly good reason to disregard said AFD and to pretend the Village Pump has priority.
  • There is another underlying policy issue, which is what the limits of WP:NOTDIR are and what type of lists are acceptable. Traditionally, this has been decided on AFD, with many great listcruft purges in the mid-noughties.
  • In the AFD, many of the delete arguments were refuted. Unfortunately some of the arguments driving the VPP discussion were not exposed as being poor (for example, the claim that lists are a burden to maintain -- as they generally are maintained well, somebody thinks to seem it is worth it. There is usually no evidence that people devoting time to fringe topics would contribute to something else if we delete their topics).
  • As a final point, I do not think closing a discussion as "send to DRV" is in any way helpful. —Kusma (t·c) 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This VPP was very clear. Given how many editors have contributed to these articles I imagine there will be a lot of overturn votes (for numerous reasons) - they should be counterbalanced by the numerous no votes at the VPP. I generally think information of this nature isn't encyclopedic, it belongs on the relevant airline websites. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add. The editors at VPP are much more likely to have a neutral stance than those involved in the AfD. Should Afd's follow policy or should policy follow AfD's...Szzuk (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "policy" was specific to the topic, though, which is why we're in this mess to begin with. This isn't a discussion about a new broad policy which affects these articles. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why does is it need to be broad? Szzuk (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. AFD is the sole forum for regular deletion discussions on specific articles. When specific articles are targeted for deletion, readers and authors must be given fair warning. The AFD process achieves that through the AFD tag. In contrast, large portions of the community in general, and people working on covering the airline industry in particular, were not aware of the VPP discussion going on. This means that VPP is not a fair forum for discussing specific article deletions, and should be given no weight in the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. The burden is on the person proposing deletion to show that this falls under WP:NOTDIR. I do not believe that has been shown in this instance; the VPP consensus simply seemed to agree it fit WP:NOTDIR without providing any arguments as to why it is more a directory than a valid list. Furthermore:
  • These lists have survived bulk deletion requests at least three times in the past (2007, 2007 again and 2015), and no major policy change happened between the last one in 2015 and now (i.e., no giant purge of WP:NOTDIR articles);
  • These lists are relevant, exhaustive, and verifiable;
  • These lists are only a yes/no of whether an airline flies or has flown to a specific destination. They are not a list of routes or a list of timetables and do not change all that often. When they do change, verifiable third-party news reports are easily found;
  • There does not appear to be any sort of test regarding whether WP:NOTDIR applies in the instance of a list, just "it is not a directory" - but I do not view these as a directory, especially since almost every destination is verifiable;
  • These lists are not WP:TRAVEL as the information does not belong in a travel guide, as shown by the refusal to add them to WikiVoyage or WikiTravel (past deletion log);
  • Even if a deletion is not overturned, several of these lists contain a narrative of destinations and therefore should not be deleted until the narrative text can be fully incorporated into the main article. WP:NOTDIR is being applied to many articles that contain more than just a list of destinations. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - Overwhelming consensus to keep. The VPP discussion before this AfD that apprently this close was based on, was WP:CONLIMITED to put it mildly as that discussion was open for over 23 days with only 21 editors giving definitive opinions whilst this AfD was only open for just over 8 days with over 40 editors giving their opinions, a clear demonstration of the VPP being a tiny group of editors coming to their small group conclusion without any regard to community consensus on a wide scale. Remember, the very basis of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is when an edit is made and not challenged, that would be implied consensus. These articles have been edited since 2004 with only a few AfDs over the years and all have been ended in definitive "keeps". That is almost a decade and a half of consensus and there is no real evidence consensus has changed. Even the one "endorse" opinion above acknowledges "how many editors have contributed to these articles" confirming the long-standing consensus achieved for over a decade. A VPP buried in the bureaucracy of WP seems to have been an attempt to sneak a conclusion of a limited group of editors by the much larger community consensus of these articles. If someone desires certain articles to be deleted, they need to AfD those specific articles, not by a VPP discussion in which most editors don't even know exist.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This isn't the venue to rehash arguments about whether these articles should be deleted, as I see some above users doing, presumably summoned from WP:AIRLINES. Whether you agree with the outcome, Spartaz did a fine job of assessing the balance of consensus of a dialogue that took place over multiple discussion boards. AdA&D ★ 23:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: re summoned from WT:AIRLINES; may I point out this page receives rarely one view per day. Any notifications to discussion on this page have largely gone unseen to the involved community who may not be aware of VPP or any discussions that may have or are occurring. As pointed out no arguements were presented as to how these lists violate WP:NOTDIR other than "violates WP:NOTDIR"; and no arguements have been presented against those who bring valid points as to how this meets GNG and does not violate NOTDIR. I've spoken my piece, but I feel this whole process has been mishandled from start to finish. Garretka (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can also be argued that these lists serve historical significance per point #4. Again, these lists are not schedules, they are lists. There is not scheduling attached. This also does not address any of the concerns surrounding the rather odd sequence of events that led to this current mess. Garretka (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical points should go into the main article, as for not schedules what do you make of "As of summer 2017, Slovenian airline Adria Airways operates to 18 scheduled destinations from Ljubljana, 5 from Pristina and 3 from Tirana."? Are you saying that these are not scheduled locations? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed they can be summarized in prose where practical. In the case you mentioned, the lead can certainly use a tidy up, that's an easy fix. Is that a reason to delete an entire article? Not in my mind. The reason the date is mentioned is per MOS:RELTIME. I'm certainly not saying those aren't scheduled locations; I'm saying these lists don't resemble any form of a schedule. Garretka (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the diff above points to the notification that I left at WT:AIRLINES, can you or someone else please let me know what was wrong with it? What policy did I violate?--Jetstreamer Talk 13:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: I think that many editors felt that this diff, in which you said Tons of information related to airline destinations are in risk of being wiped out. Please go to the link above and participate in the discussion , may have violated the policy on nuetral phrasing when canvassing. In addition, it is a best practice to link back to such comments to ensure the community understands who was notified and how. See WP:Canvass for more examples of best practices for canvassing. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billhpike: The diff you mention is not the one AD&D pointed at.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: You're right. I think Special:diff/824839631 was neutrally phrased. In the future, you should consider also leaving a comment on the target page letting other editor's know where you have posted notice. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. I have no interest in rehashing the arguments about whether the articles should be kept or not. I do, however, feel that we should not set a precedents of allowing "Wikipedia policies" to be set at the level of granularity of "this article should be kept," because it allows the usual AfD mechanism to be circumvented by getting consensus for deletion without notifying article contributors.
Furthermore, I feel that the fact that people may be coming to this discussion because of a notification on WP:AIRLINES is irrelevant, given that this clearly falls into WP:APPNOTE: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. ..." CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The VP discussion was improper per WP:FORUMSHOP. AFD is where deletions are decided and there was clearly no consensus to delete in this case. The close should have focussed on that valid discussion not some other irregular discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - How many more discussions are we going to go through here? This decision is not a vote and should be weighed by argument strength rather than WP:WAX, and WP:USEFUL comments. I have seen everything from "you might as well get rid of...to arguments about how Wikipedia will never be the same again. I fully endorse the deletions per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY which were put into place to discourage these types of lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. An utterly ridiculous abuse of procedure. Apparently WP:CONSENSUS is a joke. -- W7KyzmJt See Hear Speak 00:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An RFC on broader Wikipedia policy on lists of transportation service destinations is taking place at WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed idea - Has anyone tried making an article titled History of American Airlines (using it as an example)? The history of destinations can easily be placed into prose on an article like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read "no consensus" to delete, but a consensus that the current state is not OK, but with work can be. Some of the lists are better than others. Prose free lists of current serviced destinations is NOTDIRECTORY, but comprehensive historic coverage of transportation is. I am prompted to think of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, with the house being unusually large and slow to build. meta:Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Eventualism_vs._immediatism, the old issue, but seen less often. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the close compares this situation to the one where a policy says one thing and a local consensus of a group of editors says something else. I don't think that's a terribly fair comparison. For a start the VPP discussion doesn't establish policy, or even a guideline. It was a discussion about how to apply policy to a certain case. AfDs are themselves discussions about how to apply policy to specific cases. Furthermore an AfD is considering the case of whether to delete a specific article, instead of an abstract question about generalities, and the two forums will attract different kinds of participants. The VPP discussion also (by my count) attracted substantially less participation than the AfD did. Given that I don't think we can say that the VPP discussion is controlling here, and there wasn't a consensus for deletion in the AfD itself. Hut 8.5 08:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep, and before the people throwing bad faith accusations around above chime in, I have never made any contribution (other than as part of broader routine maintenance) to any article on either an airline nor an aircraft and have no connection to the airline project. Many delete arguments were based on a misunderstanding of policy (in particular what we mean by "schedule"), or on the argument that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting material which has the potential to go out of date, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is (probably more Wikipedia articles do contain dated statements than don't; we don't go around bulk-deleting them). If one disregards the delete votes in the original AfD that are either based on a clear misreading of policy or on spurious "I don't personally find the topic important" grounds, there was actually a fairly firm consensus to keep in the initial AfD as well. The Village Pump debate(s) should all be disregarded with respect to the specific deletion; while the VP is an appropriate place to discuss a proposed change of policy, it's always been Wikipedia custom and practice that XfD and DRV have primacy when it comes to deciding how any given policy is applied with respect to deletion. If any of these articles are individually inappropriate for Wikipedia, send them to AfD on a case-by-case basis, but this was never appropriate for a bulk deletion. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have some good points so I have a few questions 1) The VPP decided policy on this matter didn't it? Are we just ignoring this policy? 2) If the VPP had occurred without any AfD these articles would be just getting deleted en masse, yes or no? 3) Of course AFD has primacy over how policy is implemented but surely we then need proper sourcing which most of these articles don't appear to have, so we have to delete 99% of them individually to ensure we keep the 1% that are properly sourced? (Exact percentages not accurate). Szzuk (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The decision made at the VP was challenged and subsequent discussions through AN and AFD (both of them attracting a greater audience than the VP discussion) led us here. It should be more than clear at this point that the ″consensus″ at VP changed. Separately, even when an article lacks references, deletion is not cleanup.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to answer any of my questions? Szzuk (talk)
I'll try to answer, but I'm not Jetstreamer so they should make their own reply. 1) I have come to the opinion that calling a decision like the one at VPP "policy" is absurd. "Policy" is for general statements about how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Specific decisions like whether a certain article or group of articles should be deleted are a matter of implementation of policy, not of policy, and should be decided from the bottom up, not the top down. (I.e. the discussion should have started at AfD; if that could not come to a consensus then it could be escalated to the wider community to adjudicate.) This is in line with Wikipedia's practices. 2) No, because VPP is not the correct venue for deciding that articles should be deletd. 3) First, I would second what Jetstreamer said. Second, that argument also applies to the set of all these articles plus Barack Obama -- are you saying we should delete all airline destination articles and Barack Obama because it would be too much work to go through them individually and figure out which one is about a clearly notable US president? ;-) Seriously, Wikipedia has always worked by deleting pages individually, the fact that you don't like the way a majority of a certain class of articles is written is not grounds for nuking the whole class. Third, in my reading the AfD did not turn on issues of sourcing, it turned on issues of levels of consensus, so this isn't really relevant. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few more questions! 1) If WP had been created with a policy 'no airline destination lists allowed unless they pass GNG' would you ignore that or seek to get it overturned? 2) What if AfD alone is unable to delete NN articles (because vested interests prevent this) must AfD endure these articles in perpetuity? 3) Are there other presidents more worthy of page deletion? Sorry couldn't resist that :) Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - would I have participated in the original AfD I would have proposed opposed a deletion, on the grounds that at last in principle one could write an encyclopaedic article on an airline's destination (even if most if not all destination articles are anything but encyclopaedic). But one also has to acknowledge, and this is what matter in a deletion review, that the closing admin carefully examined the consensus and came to a correct reading. In particular with regards to the validity of the village pump discussion. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus in the AFD discussion was to keep. The closer disregarded that. Consensus at AN was that the VP discussion by itself is not sufficient to delete these articles. —Kusma (t·c) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not at all relevant nor helpful to the discussion at hand -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (I did not participate in the deletion discussion, nor did I vote in the RfC, nor have I to my memory had anything to do with any airline list articles, or any Airline project) Basically, I agree with Hut - the VPP discussion did not even try to amend any policy or guideline - since it did not, the closer cannot treat it as policy or guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC) (Let me add, so as not to be all critical, the wisdom of the closer in the delay is stellar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn & keep – as above. Though I wasn't involved in the previous discussions, I noticed this from WP:VPP. While there was consensus at VPP at the time against lists of airline destinations, no changes were made to policy, and VPP isn't the right place to decide bulk deletions. The fact that there seems to be no overall consensus to delete these articles makes me question the VPP consensus, and strongly in favour of enforcing procedure in this case, which should hopefully discourage sweeping VPP decisions being applied in future, especially in lower profile cases where it might not get flagged up. ‑‑YodinT 17:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Overturn & Keep - I have no opinion on the substantive issue here, but no article should be deleted where the deletion discussion does not achieve consensus, which this AfD clearly did not. VPP discussions do not carry policy weight, and AfD closures are not the place to IAR. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. There was clearly no consensus to delete at the AfD. Ignoring the AfD and closing as "delete" based solely on a previous discussion is disruptive. -- Tavix (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The VPP discussion was a limited consensus not a deletion discussion and should not override what was a weak consensus to keep the articles at AFD. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. Anyone stupid enough to delete should be dragged straight to Arbcom. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep VP limited discussion cannot set policy or delete hundred of page via extra-policy. The keep voters effectively showed why the articles pass our long-standing, widely a respected guideline GNG and our core WP:V policy and the delete voters never counter that, neither do they give informed reason for deletion except reference to VP discussion which majority also participated. They only based their reason on the VP discussion which have unclear mandate to delete such vast number of articles and had its decision overwhemingly overturned at AN after it was enacted. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as the VP decision was overturned at AN and the AFD favoured keep or at least no consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was the correct close in view of community consensus. The closer should have ignored all the keep !votes that had no policy basis following a community RfC. That RfC was not overturned at AN, despite what people are claiming above. The unilateral deletions based on it were. The closer followed policy and closed in line with community consensus. Something I hope the closer of this DRV will do as well despite the attempts of some to overrule community consensus with local consensus and misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No: it is the correct thing to do when people try to relitigate recently settled policy discussions in local forums like AfD or DRV. The closer correctly did so when they closed the AfD, and the DRV closet should ignore the non-policy or consensus based comments here that are just trying to relitigate an RfC. This is not an admin conduct issue: I’m encouraging the closing admin to follow policy and ignore the non-policy based uproar. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I simply followed the procedural DRV suggestion made by the closing admin at the AFD. Luckily, many more editors have joined this discussion. I invite you to go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Should_Wikipedia_have_lists_of_transportation_service_destinations? where a broader discussion is being held, and see what people think about the deletion of transportation lists you stoically keep defending.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to have the "policy based reasoning" for this deletion explained. As the AN discussion said it was NOT ok to use the RFC to justify deletions without an AFD, it follows that the AFD had the power to decide these deletions. Otherwise, if the outcome was clear from the start, going through the motions of an AFD plus DRV is ridiculous. No matter how many times the delete voters claim otherwise, there is no policy that says Wikipedia should not have these lists. As for essays supporting policy, the lists in question pass all of the criteria of WP:LISTCRUFT. A single village pump discussion does not establish policy (which is not quite the same as what is written in "policy pages"), especially in cases like this where it was followed up by a discussion in the proper venue (AFD) that came to a different result. RFCs become policy only if the community supports the outcome of the RFC, which is why any major RFC needs to be advertised in a lot of places and get everyone on board. Wikipedia is not Nomic: a single discussion can't just change The Rules. Fortunately, most admins know that. —Kusma (t·c) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A community wide RfC closed at the village pump against this specific class of articles: that is the community consensus. The current village pump discussion is a straw man that deals with broader topics and not the airline topic. People don't like the outcome, so they keep playing "Take it to the next forum so only the people who want to keep will participate". Fortunately most admins also know this tactic. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't care one way or another about the topic of airlines, and if there were a new RfC, I'd be neutral. I saw the RfC and thought it was boring as heck, and so I stayed out of it. I just don't like the constant ignoring of community consensus and the misrepresentation of what consensus can change means. Consensus on things like this doesn't change within two or three weeks: that's not how Wikipedia works, and your constant efforts to bludgeon the outcome here are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENT is for use where there is a wide impact, I don't see that, it is only about airline destinations. Szzuk (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The impact is certainly wider than the VP participants thought.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; as a result of that, we currently have a proposal to delete all transportation-related lists as a direct result of the earlier VPP discussion. It's very clear that the participants in the earlier discussion were neither a representative sample, nor aware of exactly what they were supporting. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can support that, I'll reserve comment for now though, regardless the NN bus and train articles we have are a problem that needs a solution. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that the wider RFC on transportation lists is intended to damage the VPP on airlines. It never had a chance and the nom knew this. Szzuk (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on.... so you are saying in a nutshell that the first VPP discussion were a clueless bunch of editors that should be dismissed because they don't matter? This is a collaborative encyclopedia meaning that these discussions should count. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for procedural reasons. VPP is not an accepted venue to consider deleting one article, no less hundreds. Let that bleed into AFD wasn't a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep There were countless valid arguments towards keeping these lists, and definitely not a solid consensus for deleting them. What constructive purpose would deleting these lists have for Wikipedia? Taking away valuable, accurate, and useful information doesn't sound like the goal of Wikipedia to me. In addition -- the AFD consensus wasn't even delete! Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am torn between "Endorse" and "Overturn to no consensus." The closer was quite clear and thorough in their approach and there is nothing technically wrong with the reasoning of decision. I also think that it would have been appropriate for a "no consensus" close since the community expressed a variety of different opinions on the list of proposed deletions. That said, it was unwise to bring to XfD a large list of controversial articles as one deletion discussion and the closer addressed some of those concerns. --Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No deletion discussion should ever be closed as "delayed deletion". There is either a consenus to delete the article, or there is not. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this. The closer's prediction re DRV was proven true within a few days, so the sense of avoiding the deletion-recreation cycle is a perfectly valid application of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A correct close wouldn't have been challenged. Closing against consensus and then passing on the actual decision to DRV is bad form, to put a positive spin on it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Begging the question of whether the consensus was to ignore WP:NOT— that is and remains the defining issue. I'm seeing this over and and over again in these discussions: people promote the ability to source (which again, I'm going to say is largely reliant on primary sourcing in this case) and utility over any limits we've adopted on the work to be done. I'm almost tempted to submit that, in practice, most of WP:NOT has been overcome by actual article writing and AfD voting. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with this. There are valid cases to be made for and against the inclusion of this article in light of WP:NOT. The consensus at AfD was to keep (or certainly was not to delete), with valid arguments being made that these articles do not go against WP:NOTDIR; the defining issue is whether the alternative interpretation of WP:NOT determined at WPP should have primacy. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse What I saw in the original argument is being repeated here: that being able to cite something (and I question how well-cited these articles will ever be when their reliance on airline websites is broken) trumps WP:NOT. I can't see it: the entire intent of WP:NOT, when it comes to article-writing, is to say "even if we can document these, we aren't going to do so." As to the WP:VPP discussion, I don't see a problem with it. It may not have set policy, but there was nothing improper about trying to get some preliminary indication of the likelihood of a successful AFD. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- classic case of strength of arguments outweighing quantity of votes. Reyk YO! 13:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the delete arguments? For example, many of them claimed "These articles violate WP:NOTTRAVEL", but if you actually look at WP:NOTTRAVEL, you'll immediately discount any argument citing that (it is about something else altogether). Other arguments were similarly weak. —Kusma (t·c) 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The airlines are notable, just not where they travel to. If you want to find a place online to look up scheduled travel destinations then go-to a travel agency site and not Wikipedia. I'm sure x site will tell you if x airline runs seasonal flights to x location or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literally everything on Wikipedia is (or at least should be) mentioned in some other source. That's not a valid argument for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can, and has been, argued that the destinations are equally as important both to show the presence of an airlines at an airport and its sphere of influence(as stated earlier, maps do a better job of this than lists or tables). Garretka (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the information can be stated in prose on the main article without having to go into an overly detailed article on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that x is encyclopedic because of its sphere of presence or influence isn't the best argument alone to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain? Thats not the only arguement for keeping these articles, as I and many other editors have pointed out. Garretka (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding airlines isn't a rare occurrence and the fact that x airline goes to ... isn't notable to the destination mentioned. Most airlines in fact advertise their new locations as a way to earn more revenue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep - AfD is the appropriate place for these deletion discussions, not VPP, and the consensus at the appropriate place was keep. Most of the delete arguments were grounded in false interpretations of policy, and in any case, the VPP discussion was not the appropriate place to be having it and should not play a factor. Ignoring that, consensus was clear to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is consensus, one can argue that VPP had an uninvolved pool of editors that reply on matters of guidelines and policy. The fact is that no the consensus was not to keep anywhere so far as replies are measured by weight of argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue what one likes, but deletion requires a consensus of editors to delete; this was clearly not present at AfD (the relevant forum), and arguably not aat VPP either given the ambiguity of the discussion and the controversy of the close. In any event, it the job of VPP to follow and broaden the consensus that emerges "locally" elsewhere, but not to write policy out of whole cloth. That is what policy pages are for. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikivoyage has a mention of airline destinations here: [2] under "Flying to Africa". This is an example of how this information can be expanded there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. The number of participants at the afd was greater than at the RfC, and gave a different and apparently clearer presentation. With have no rule respecting the relative strengths of and AfD/Del Rev and a RfC on the same topic. To actually delete an article requires a consensus at AfD, not RfC. The RfC can set a general guideline, but an AfD can decide when to override a general guideline in a specific case. Were I closing ,I would probably not be able to say there was a consensus to keep based on the AfD. but neither could I say there was a consensus too not overrule the RfC. The situation is clearly one where we do not have agreement. (fwiw, I argued to delete at the RfC, but did not participate in the afD. But I do not pretend that my own view is the one that had overall consensus when it appears not t to be the case. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG, I think your points are nuanced, and I appreciate your explaining them but I think it is important to make clear that we do have a consensus agreed upon way of amending policy and guideline (which not surprisingly is written down in policy at WP:PROPOSAL) -- it actually lays out an extended process for making P/G and requires, at the beginning, formulation of the exact wording of the new P/G, often multiple discussions (not one and done!); extensive notice that it is a P&G; and a closing that actually says it is "promoted". This VPP RfC fails, in every-respect from its very beginning to its end. And this is not just being procedural, the Pedia would be even more of an anarchy were we to try to have these various enforceable (so enforceable they can't be challenged) - 'unwritten-into-editing-policies, editing-policies' - that by definition can't be amended because they are unwritten -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to find policies and guidelines that we constantly ignore, even easier to find one we sometimes ignore, and generally possible to find those that contradict each other, Discussing whether the adoption of a guideline is valid adds another layer of complexity and doubt, and makes it possible to challenge almost anything. I can find something wrong with any complicated procedural matter; if I want to challenge it, I can say it's a significant enough error to invalidate the rule; if I want to accept it, I can say it's inconsequential. The rules are best seen as one of the indications of what one can is likely to be able to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Airline destinations lists and all other Wikipedia lists will be deleted, or let's change WP:NOTDIR to WP:NOLISTS. That's how the very first discussion should have been exposed, because that's what it was: a carte blanche to delete everything a group of editors do not like.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed ratifying the logic behind this AfD into WP:NOTDIR. See WP:VPP#transportation lists. To put it mildly, the community was not enthusiastic about my proposal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of an AfD is not measured by how many participants there are but of argument weight. A lot of the replies on the AfD amounted to "what about x" and/or "If we delete this then we will have to delete this..." arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or, failing that, overturn to no consensus per DGG. Discussion about a subject shouldn't be ignored simply because it happened in the wrong place. ansh666 08:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Beware of the leopard. —Kusma (t·c) 09:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you're going to explain this comment? It doesn't seem to relate to the topic or to the comment to which you reply. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See HHGTTG. See also WP:VOGONS. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course if these airline pages are deleted next it'll be those NN bus articles, then the NN train articles, then the procedure will be codified into a couple of sentences and set in stone. Being banned from adding non notable transport pages?! Awful! Heaven help us - we might not have an article on the bus stop outside my house! The bulldozer awaits any admin closing this as Endorse lol. Szzuk (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia might just implode as well as this will have a butterfly effect that could destroy the internet as we know it. Seriously though, I am a believer of each case being unique. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Some jackass with a bulldozer was outside, distracting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...? ansh666 20:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, gotcha, thanks Andrew. I also don't buy that lack of "publicity" or whatever you'd call it is relevant. The fact of the matter is that consensus in one discussion disagreed with another discussion, which had problems with "publicity" in the other direction. ansh666 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ansh666, that's exactly a reason to overturn the closing. The discussion in this AfD, which was the correct place to discuss the proposed deletion of articles, was ignored due to a WP:CONLIMITED discussion in another forum between a small group of editors which was the wrong place to discuss proposed article deletions.--Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still hung up on "the correct place" vs "the wrong place", which is irrelevant. ansh666 20:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We still shouldn't ignore the consensus that actually took place in the right forum just because of some discussion elsewhere that wasn't even in the right place. At best, right vs. wrong place is irrelevant as you say - consensus in the wrong place certainly doesn't override consensus in the right place. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care too much about "process", but fairness is important (and reasonable processes help ensuring fairness). Telling 30 people that their opinions no longer count because last week 20 people elsewhere came to a different conclusion doesn't strike me as fair. If the AFD did not have the power to decide the deletion, it should have been speedily closed -- pretending to hold an AFD an then ignoring it is very poor style. —Kusma (t·c) 20:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I admit I'm not at all impressed by the close. That said, I still don't think, taking both discussions into consideration, that there's enough of a consensus either way. FWIW, I think the most fair course of action for this situation would be to disavow both the VP discussion and this AfD discussion as an inappropriate mass nominations and open individual ones for each airline destination article, but the 400+ pages in that category obviously would make that unworkable. ansh666 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why unworkable? We could go through them one per day, and then we might actually find the middle ground between "We must not have any list of airline destinations at all, not even List of Braathens destinations and List of Cathay Dragon destinations" and "We must have lists of airline destination lists for every airline, and are not allowed to delete or merge broken-link Ándalus Líneas Aéreas destinations". For the pages that are an embarrassment, we might find a consensus to delete or merge to the parent article. I am not a fan of Ryanair destinations in its present state either, to give a more prominent example. Mass AFD nominations are really hard to do properly, and usually end up not working well. Letting each article stand on its merits is more work, but I expect the end result would be much better (in terms of articles improved and really bad stuff weeded out) than a high-stakes discussion about the general class of articles. —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, yes, it would work just fine, but in practice I fear that we'd get things like people copy-pasting rationales on every article regardless of its merits, complaints that we're flooding AfD (which is already fairly high-volume but low-participation), and discussion fatigue before we even get to 100. Is it worth a try? Probably. Do I personally think it will end well? No. ansh666 08:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC I was waiting for someone to make an argument that I could buy, and I think DGG's is that. The AfD could override a policy/guideline, the bar is lower for a less-attended RfC. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The VPP discussion came out with a clear consensus, so that is the consensus. IMO, the AfD was not necessary and just a delaying tactic. The delete argument of WP:NOTTRAVEL/WP:NOTDIR should override any argument to keep because the topic can be sourced. Everything in WP:NOT can possibly be sourced but these are topics that should be excluded regardless of sourcing. Anyone argueing for "no consensus" should be aware that the ANI said "a no consensus result should default to delete, not keep, based on the consensus at the broader RfC for these articles". I am pinging @Tazerdadog: who closed the ANI to weigh in on that.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved this from the end of the other DRV below. ansh666 23:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll also notice that Tazerdadog struck those comments out as thats not the way no consensus defaults work. Garretka (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tazerdadog did not strike the comments, they are still there [3] Also, my apologies for accidentally posting in the wrong place and thank you to Ansh666 for moving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)
Please find the archived discussion here. Garretka (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he didn't delete an old revision doesn't mean he didn't strike the comments in a later one. And he most certainly did. WP:REVDEL should only be done in extreme circumstances, and an erroneous close is not one of them, so I'm not sure what your point was by linking to an outdated version of the page. Smartyllama (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem with this argument is you need to have an AfD to delete an article that's not a speedy delete, a speedy delete was overturned, and the delete didn't establish a consensus. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Two closers (fish&karate, and Spartaz) both found the consensus to be delete at two different locations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not entirely true, otherwise the articles would be deleted already. Yet controversial to some editors, Spartaz suggested to discuss their close and here we are.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That text was present in my initial close, then others convinced me I overreached as a closer by making that statement, and so I struck it out. That is the standard way to retract a statement on Wikipedia. If the closer, after weighing both discussions, arrives at a result of no consensus, the default is still to keep the article. No comments on the merits of this AfD or the ensuing deletion review. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 Delayed deletion. Phew! I’m closing this as delete but I’m going to delay the actions until after the inevitable DRV which can be started without pretending to discuss the close with me for forms sake.

Let’s set the scene. VPP discussions do not authorise deletion but its not true to say that only arguments in an AFD can support deletion as the whole point of closing against consensus is that we measure the arguments against wider policy considerations and a cross project consensus on policy has more validity then that from a group of editors enthusiastic about a subject. A good example of this is marginally notable BLPs regularly being deleted because BLP1E out trumps the gng. <NOTE 1>

So we have a wider consensus from VPP that this class of articles fail NOTDIR and are effectively UNDUE often being spun out of articles because they are too unwieldy. On the other hand we have arguments to keep on the basis that they pass the GNG and are effectively useful, <NOTE 2> What is also unhelpful was canvassing on the keep side meaning that I had to give the keep arguments a little less weight to balance that out - but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus. <NOTE 3>

It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV and, likely, further discussion at ANI before the final consensus is clear. I am therefore delaying enacting the close which ever is the later of until consensus is clear or two weeks. I’m leaving tags on so that interested editors can find the latest links of where the discussion is. Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • NOTE 1: Ignoring the VPP is undemocratic - they are an interested party and have a voice.
  • NOTE 2: Balancing the VPP against the AfD - fair process
  • NOTE 3: The argument weighting is adjusted because of canvassing, (it is happening here too)

This is an immaculate close from an enormously experienced AfD closer. Szzuk (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs about canvassing here.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diff; democracy is about listening to all points of view not just your own. Szzuk (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, show diffs. And you are not being neutral either: ″...but even if I did the effect would have been the same as wider project consensus beats local consensus″ can also be read above. Furthermore, ″It would be extremely disruptive to delete all these articles and links until the argument has gone through the full process which inevitably will include a DRV.″ Both statements are pretty contradictory.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The diff; democracy is wanting to hear the views of others even if you disagree with those views. Szzuk (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what WP:DIFF means?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what I mean by diff; ?Szzuk (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)][reply]
Szzuk, what Jetstreamer is asking you is to please show the exact edits to back up your claim of canvassing. --Oakshade (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a democracy - but seeking to silence the voice of the others is undemocratic. Szzuk (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. No one is actively trying to silence anyone. I think you are getting a bit more dramatic than the situation calls for. VP has never been the place to decide what is deleted. Most people don't visit VP, so I suppose you are ignoring their input by having deletion discussions at VP..... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general trend of this discussion seems to be 'ignore the VPP'. I'm not saying they decide on the delete - just that the opinion counts because they were asked a very direct question relating to the issue. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to collapse the above because 1) It's clear everyone has read the close and repeating it is silly lengthening of the page; 2) This extended commentary is WP:BLUDGEON, you're just saying the same things over and over again; 3) Everyone already knows the outcome of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of DRV is to examine the validity of the close - and you don't even want to see it. Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to be offensive? Do you think we do not know the purpose of DRV? We do. People's comments show they have read the the close. Your saying the same thing again and again does not help anyone, at all - it just makes your claims look weak, for example using "immaculate" for a close that is overwhelmingly in the process of being overturned is just nonsense, as is your silly argument trying to make it about the closer, and your bizarre claims about democracy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the conversation and it had to be restored! An endorse outcome is still possible because WP is not a democracy. Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your odd exclamation point about, now? No, it did not have to be - everyone's already read the same stuff over and over. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TPG Szzuk (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is assuming bad faith on the part of the closer who in fact closed the AfD as delete. You saying that the closer ignored consensus is your own opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for you to support the closer's decision by assuming that the closer's "consensus" was the actual consensus, was circular reasoning. The whole point of DRV is to decide whether the close was valid. No application of your BLUDGEON will change the result one way or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR overturn to NC; delete only after finding a better solution. As a long-time if low-intensity wikipedian, I understand the general line of reasoning (NOTDIR, policy clarified at VP, AFD applies policy) leading to deletion. And yet: I'm reading this waiting for a work meeting to start, all of us frequent travelers. I just asked, and 9 of 11 people in the room "regularly" consult WP for airline destination information. One person jokingly said, "it's the one part of WP I trust" to general merriment. All of us have consulted these lists in 2018, in some cases weekly, and yet none of us was aware of the policy discussion that happened at VP in January underpinning this. As I look at the discussion there, it was clearly done with the best intentions, but leaned heavily on some early opinions treated as gospel, e.g. "Impossible to maintain" (perhaps seems that way, but these articles and their related lists of airlines serving a given airport seem to be remarkably up to date, maintained adequately by whatever group of enthusiastic wikignomes); "if I wanted to know who flies to a given destination, I'd ask a travel agent" (yes that is one way, but many people self-plan their travel, don't want/need to pay a travel agent or don't trust they gave a complete answer, and find this info helpful), and "move it to wikivoyage" (who actually have set policy that airline and airline-related articles in general are out of scope). The broadening number of voices speaking up against deletion, in the AFD, and in this DRV, should be an alert that perhaps apparent consensus was illusory, or at least premature; or, if you will, has changed.
So, where to from here: rather than jumping to deletion, as participants in the broader "wiki" movement, let's have a broad and well-attended discussion somewhere focused on *solutions*. We have something that works, if doubtless relevant only for a small group of people (something true for lots of corners in WP). Perhaps a better home for it would be wikivoyage or wikidata, if they can be made to agree to take it. Or a site on wikia or a corner of flyertalk, though there are intellectual property issues there. Or maybe the analogies with train networks etc, raised by a few voices but rejected by others at the VP discussion, are actually relevant, and the content should stay here, in the spirit of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Or maybe the airline destination lists should go, but the who-serves-what-airport lists should stay. I don't know. But the degree and tone of the discussion show the VP discussion was, while well-intentioned and raised many good point, at best incomplete. Let's find the right answer first, rather than just say "not here, take it somewhere else". Martinp (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There are four classes of articles here: Active, Charter, Defunct, and Subsidiary Airlines. A charter operator is free to claim operations in any market within the range of its fleet. To create a list from the subject's website is inviting a game. Defunct airlines are problematic. We have editors claiming that lists of destinations are easily found. Reliable sources are, in many cases, impossible to find. When the subject's website dies, so does the (arguably) best source. Web archives don't capture drop-down lists. Editors argue that the list of of discontinued destinations tell an important story. Most of the articles about active airlines include terminated destinations and then use the subject's own website as a source. Airlines typically don't tell the story of their failed routes on their commercial website. I don't have a problem with using the subject's own website for destinations currently served. Using it as a basis to claim discontinued destinations is original research at best and needs to be disallowed. Lists of codeshare destinations is also misleading. There are a bunch of articles on subsidiaries that are dodgy, too. Take for example Austral Líneas Aéreas destinations. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aerolíneas Argentinas. It has separate union contracts, but from a passenger's perspective is the same as the mainline carrier. This situation is very common in Central and South America. The discussion should address these various classes of article. Rhadow (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have dePRODed the article [4]. The problems you raised are not solved by deleting articles. The deletion is far from being uncontroversial considering this discussion. And I suggest you to stop PRODing or AFDing airline destination articles until this discussion is over.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The fundamental issue here is the argument for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to ones created today. Insufficiently referenced articles from 2006 are claimed to have a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same articles today would fail review and never make it to the mainspace. The same is true for photography definitions, train stations, and a host of special interest articles. In any other area, editors would not accept references from the subject's website. Where current destinations are concerned, I think we agree that the subject is an acceptable source. What surprises me is defense of destination articles with no references whatsoever. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Why should our readers accept this lowered standard of reliability? Rhadow (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, would you want to agree to not waste ink and start referencing them together on a task force? SportingFlyer (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer -- I am happy to contribute to articles (a) that I feel are fundamentally useful to a reader of the encyclopedia and (b) are not a sink of editing effort. I give as an example American Eagle Airlines destinations whose retention you defend. This article would require a monthly review of over a hundred entries every month to keep it up to date. It gets fifteen page views a day. The editing effort (in time) will likely exceed the reading time. How useful is that? Nevertheless, I am the most active editor on that article since this debate reignited. Rhadow (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rhadow, is there any way I can convince you to stop AfDing these articles until this discussion is over, and possibly withdraw them from deletion for the time being? At the moment we're having this rather contentious discussion over several different places, and it would be best to consolidate the discussion at the moment. The same arguments we saw here are starting to be made over at the American Eagle AfD article, and you're even editing an article you AfD'd! Also, I think you overestimate the amount of time needed to reference these articles to keep them current. We don't need to review over the references of over a hundred entries a month, especially considering it's a binary list. Thanks! SportingFlyer (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Rahul Verma (social activist) – Allow Recreation. There's no good consensus on whether the original close was correct, so let's call that NC. But, there's pretty good agreement that, with sources that have appeared since the AfD (specifically the NY Times article), a new attempt at writing an article should be allowed.
There was some discussion about whether a new article should need to start from scratch, or if the existing version should be used as the starting point. There wasn't any consensus on that question, but apparently Shibanihk already has a draft ready to go, so that's a moot issue.
There was also a somewhat theoretical discussion about whether an allow recreation result makes the new article G4 proof, or whether there's always an implied right to recreate an article if it's not salted. No consensus on that, but I'll state here that any new version certainly will need to meet all of our requirements, and if anybody finds the new version is still lacking, they can bring it back to AfD.
As for Shibanihk's question about what to do with their new draft, my personal suggestion would be that running it through WP:AFC to get some review might be a good idea, but there's no requirement to do so.
And, for a small dose of piscatorial abuse, yeah, a half hour isn't enough time to wait when asking a question on somebody's talk page. A couple of days is more reasonable. Not to mention, that while I don't know what time zone Julian exists in, the half hour in question was when most people where I live are fast asleep.
And, finally, as a practical suggestion for citing NY Times articles, the URL mentioned in the DRV is to the "picture of the front page" version of the article. this URL gets you directly to the article by itself. Albeit with a slightly different headline, but I think that's an International Edition vs U.S. Edition thing. There's probably a URL that gets you directly to the exact version originally cited. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Rahul Verma (social activist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He is a grass root worker whose work is making significance change in the life of destitute in India. The New York Times recently did a front page story on him, in this article it is clearly visible that he remain media shy for so many years. His work is praised not only in India but around the world. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2017/12/29/nytfrontpage/INYT_frontpage_global.20171229.pdf

One Man’s Stand Against Junk Food as Diabetes Climbs Across India ( online addition) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/health/india-diabetes-junk-food.html Same article was featured as a two page article in printed addition of Gulf times http://gulfnews.com/culture/people/a-father-sues-to-curb-junk-food-as-diabetes-spreads-1.2150937 Here is video featured about his work by CNBC TV 18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZYVav8_r2o HelloDolly89 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't follow the "delete" versus "redirect" choice. User:DGG? It seems a bit of an knee jerk over reaction to an unjustified spinout. I'd have !voted "redirect". I think there is a defensible conclusion that consensus was against leaving a separate article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The refs in the AfD look strong but appear to have been ignored, at worst it is a searchable term. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "merge", leaving it to editorial discretion how much text to merge. The nomination was extremely weak – it doesn't matter for notability what most sources say, what matters is whether some have substantial coverage. The !deletes seem non-policy-based to me since they all presume at least some mention at Uday Foundation so a redirect (or merge) would be indicated. Finally, it seems rather difficult to argue that a foundation is notable but the person who set it up, named it. and runs it is not notable. However, our guidelines can be read so as to reach that conclusion and so !votes following that line of thought should be respected. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just seen the new references (which aren't relevant to whether the AFD was closed properly). If the DRV nominator had waited longer for a reply the deleting admin might well have suggested creating a new article (or draft). Thincat (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waited longer? Nonsense. The nominator gave me nearly an entire half hour. :) I stand by my decision at the AfD (the "delete" votes largely rested on the sound foundation of WP:NOTINHERETED while the "keeps" included such weak stances as "He deserves to be on Wikipedia" and a simple, unsubstantiated "meets notability requirements"). I saw and continue to see no other way the debate could have been closed. That said, it's been nearly a year so if additional sources have since cropped up and the subject's notability has become better established, I have no objection to trying again. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC overturn to merge as a second choice The policy-based argument for deletion is weak IMO (not notable other than his foundation is like being not notable for anything other than playing baseball). The sources are limited but outstanding. The numbers are split. I'm pretty sure I'd support merging honestly, but I don't think the numbers get us there (even if we treat the deletes as merge !votes, it's only 6 to 4). And again, the front page of the NYT is pretty solid. there is no way this was a delete. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a flimsy analogy, if I'm being honest. A notable baseball player is notable because sources discuss him in the context of his baseball career. As I interpreted the discussion last April, there was (at least) a rough consensus that the sources which mentioned the subject only did so in passing as part of in-depth discussions about his foundation. As we know, creating something notable does not automatically make you notable by extension, and I'm a little surprised that you'd suggest otherwise. The NYT story was published months after the fact, so again, the circumstances may well have changed, and I'd be happy for all of the subject's many supporters if this were the case. I'd just like to make sure we distinguish between a judgment error on my part and an actual shift toward heightened notability over the course of ten months. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was that statements like "only notable for the thing he does for a living" isn't a reasonable deletion criteria. A lack of coverage of course is. But that's not what some of those !votes said. And I'll point out that we treat articles that review books/art as counting toward coverage of the writer/artist. So even then we do sometime count coverage of their work even if it doesn't discuss _them_ in great detail. So the argument that only being notable for one thing means you don't get an article is really flawed IMO. I will note that I think your close at the time was reasonable (I'd missed that the NYT article came after the AfD). Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion on this ref? It is the best of those included in the AfD and if it is OK then along with the NYTI ref above it would convey enough notability for a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unambiguous Endorse obvious close: those supporting keeping it were SPAs or non-extended confirmed accounts with a likely COI. The arguments in favour of deletion were better. This is also a year after the fact. DRV is not AfD round two, especially not a year later. Juliancolton's explanation above shows that he understands how AfDs work, and that this was well within the discretion of a closer. He should be given a barnstar for this, not have it overturned. Also, if the circumstances have changed: recreate the article and let's see if an independent admin thinks it passes G4. DRV should not be used to G4 proof articles where editors on the "losing" side of an XfD think it has changed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a large percent of what DRV does. Asking someone to write an article when they it's really unclear if it's going to get speedied is asking a lot of a volunteer. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well within closer discretion to accord less weight to SPAs and the like. T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I shared a recent front page NYT [5] [6] article about the subject on the talk page of User:Juliancolton on 11 January 2018‎ with the request that if it possible to reinstate the article. Since I got no reply, again I posted the same on his talk page on 9th February 2018 and over here. At no point in time, I mentioned that if the page was wrongly deleted. My point was simple that since the article about the subject appeared on the front page of NYT, and there are few more detailed media sources have appeared in last one year [7] [8] [9] , is it possible to overturn the article well within the guidelines or if we can create a new article about the subject. Thanks HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should recreate the article if the DRV ends in endorse. Just keep it a short 2-3 sentences and include only the best 3-4 refs, include in the article recreation edit summary the New York Times front page. If you do that mostly likely it will avoid speedy delete or a further visit to AfD. Szzuk (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. If you feel significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page as per WP:DRVPURPOSE. Shibanihk (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't salted, and it isn't new information at the time of the AfD (sourcing that existed but no one brought forth, etc.) DRV should not be in the business of G4-proofing new articles, which is what an allow recreation result is. DRV is much more sympathetic to attempts to recreate than most CSD reviewing admins, and using it in this way is basically gaming the system, IMO. Anyone is always free to recreate a non-salted article so long as it passes the G4 standard. As we cannot know if the article will pass the G4 standard until we see it, a close of endorse is best, with the standard disclaimer that anyone can recreate if they feel it passes G4. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks TonyBallioni So in case of new draft, I need to inform Juliancolton in advance or May I share the same with with both of you for review / advice. My draft with few important references to reliable published sources are ready. Shibanihk (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_February_9&oldid=1138441972"