- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. – Joe ( talk) 09:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
American Eagle Airlines destinations
- American Eagle Airlines destinations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article, unreferenced since it was created in 2006, purports to describe the destinations of six unidentified airlines (FAA certificate holders) that operate(d) under the American Eagle logo. Without reliable references, the article is original research. Rhadow ( talk) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. References that meet WP:N are easily found for these types of articles. The fact it's currently a poorly referenced article doesn't make it original research. SportingFlyer ( talk) 18:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - per SportingFlyer. What the nom needs to understand is WP:N requires the existence of references, not if they're already placed in the article by the time a specific editor happens on it. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - where are these references that can easily be found? Could someone demonstrate that indeed these references exist? AA.com does not seem to provide this information, as it only indicates the operating airline, but not the airline brand. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 ( talk) 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you google "American Eagle" and or "Envoy" and the name of the destination, several news articles invariably come up. For instance, for showing at least former service to two destinations:
[1]
[2]
SportingFlyer (
talk) 20:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Those both took me less than a minute to find, by the way.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- And? How does help us source an article that is meant to comprehensively cover all of American Eagle's destinations? The article name is "American Eagle Airlines destinations" not "Some of American Eagle Airlines destinations".
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk) 21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- This article isn't supposed to be a copy of the destinations on an airline website, but rather a list of places an airline flies or has flown.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be difficult to understand: We need one or more reliable sources that show that the airline flies or has flown to the places in the list, and that the list is complete and comprehensive. In other words, how can we know that this article includes all American Eagle destinations?
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Or in the alternative, that the airline no longer flies there ... and I won't accept an assertion that, because a particular location is no longer on the subject's website, that it had and terminated service.
Rhadow (
talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. No one is arguing that point. The information is available elsewhere anyways and needs to be in order to pass notability, such as newspaper articles or former route maps. Some of these articles are poorly referenced, but a poorly referenced article shouldn't be deleted because it's poorly referenced: a poorly referenced article should be deleted only if there are no references available to source it. In any case, a larger AfD/DRV/policy discussion about lists of destinations is currently ongoing, you know this, and picking one particular article to try the "original research" AfD debate on at this moment isn't helpful in the least, especially since reliable published sources exist, whether they be articles talking about the closing of a route or old maps or diagrams.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, it is not fine. You claim that references are easily found, but fail to find any. This is also unrelated to the ongoing discussion on airline destination articles. This is a special situation we have here - an airline brand, not an operating airline. With List of Lufthansa/KLM/Emirates airlines there is no question about references, we just use the airline webpage/schedules. There is no such webpage or schedule for American Eagle, so you have to demonstrate that these references exist somewhere else. Please show us these "easily found references". I would be happy to change to keep if evidence is shown that this article can be properly sourced, now or at some undetermined point in the future.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 (
talk) 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 -- Thie issue is more fundamental than Eagle's peculiar circumstance.
SportingFlyer is arguing for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to one created today.
American Eagle destinations has a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same article 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. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Since this particular discussion started, Portland, ME and Lansing, MI have references. Pointe a Pitre has fallen into doubt.
Rhadow (
talk)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying anything other than this article should not be deleted, since numerous sources exist showing the article is notable. I added those two references in about three minutes, by the way. I'm not going to waste my time referencing an article in an AfD discussion. Finally, Pointe a Pitre is not in doubt - the airline flies or has flown there.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
-
Republic Airline served
Fort-de-France in January 2018. It is not on the February 2018 map. If the standard for the Destination List series is to be serves or served without differentiation, fine. But that's not the way they are formatted. If it takes three minutes to update two destinations, then it will take two and a half hours a month to keep this one article up to date.
Rhadow (
talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's a logical flaw. You don't need to recreate the reference table every month to keep this information current. It's becoming increasingly clear you're AfDing an article on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, not
WP:N grounds.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- It'n not a matter of disliking it. It is a matter of suggesting that it is a waste of time to maintain an article for which the bar has been set unreasonably high. Tell me please which airports American Eagle serves: Dulles or Reagan National ... or Bush Intercontinental or Hobby? These monthly changes of destination are not notable. No newspaper bothers to write that
Fort-de-France was dropped from the schedule. It's simply not notable. It is travel trivia not suitable for an encyclopedia.
Rhadow (
talk) 19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- That article was actually already posted in this thread: [3] SportingFlyer ( talk) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- It'n not a matter of disliking it. It is a matter of suggesting that it is a waste of time to maintain an article for which the bar has been set unreasonably high. Tell me please which airports American Eagle serves: Dulles or Reagan National ... or Bush Intercontinental or Hobby? These monthly changes of destination are not notable. No newspaper bothers to write that
Fort-de-France was dropped from the schedule. It's simply not notable. It is travel trivia not suitable for an encyclopedia.
Rhadow (
talk) 19:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's a logical flaw. You don't need to recreate the reference table every month to keep this information current. It's becoming increasingly clear you're AfDing an article on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, not
WP:N grounds.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 19:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
-
Republic Airline served
Fort-de-France in January 2018. It is not on the February 2018 map. If the standard for the Destination List series is to be serves or served without differentiation, fine. But that's not the way they are formatted. If it takes three minutes to update two destinations, then it will take two and a half hours a month to keep this one article up to date.
Rhadow (
talk) 18:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not saying anything other than this article should not be deleted, since numerous sources exist showing the article is notable. I added those two references in about three minutes, by the way. I'm not going to waste my time referencing an article in an AfD discussion. Finally, Pointe a Pitre is not in doubt - the airline flies or has flown there.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 -- Thie issue is more fundamental than Eagle's peculiar circumstance.
SportingFlyer is arguing for a different standard to be applied to 2006 vintage articles than to one created today.
American Eagle destinations has a grandfathered claim to notability because of the possibility that references may be found. The same article 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. PROD any of them or take them to AfD. Gallons of virtual ink will be spilled in their defense with, typically, no improvement. Since this particular discussion started, Portland, ME and Lansing, MI have references. Pointe a Pitre has fallen into doubt.
Rhadow (
talk)
- No, it is not fine. You claim that references are easily found, but fail to find any. This is also unrelated to the ongoing discussion on airline destination articles. This is a special situation we have here - an airline brand, not an operating airline. With List of Lufthansa/KLM/Emirates airlines there is no question about references, we just use the airline webpage/schedules. There is no such webpage or schedule for American Eagle, so you have to demonstrate that these references exist somewhere else. Please show us these "easily found references". I would be happy to change to keep if evidence is shown that this article can be properly sourced, now or at some undetermined point in the future.
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:6C89:7DBA:DD79:C2A1 (
talk) 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. No one is arguing that point. The information is available elsewhere anyways and needs to be in order to pass notability, such as newspaper articles or former route maps. Some of these articles are poorly referenced, but a poorly referenced article shouldn't be deleted because it's poorly referenced: a poorly referenced article should be deleted only if there are no references available to source it. In any case, a larger AfD/DRV/policy discussion about lists of destinations is currently ongoing, you know this, and picking one particular article to try the "original research" AfD debate on at this moment isn't helpful in the least, especially since reliable published sources exist, whether they be articles talking about the closing of a route or old maps or diagrams.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Or in the alternative, that the airline no longer flies there ... and I won't accept an assertion that, because a particular location is no longer on the subject's website, that it had and terminated service.
Rhadow (
talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be difficult to understand: We need one or more reliable sources that show that the airline flies or has flown to the places in the list, and that the list is complete and comprehensive. In other words, how can we know that this article includes all American Eagle destinations?
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk) 21:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- This article isn't supposed to be a copy of the destinations on an airline website, but rather a list of places an airline flies or has flown.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- And? How does help us source an article that is meant to comprehensively cover all of American Eagle's destinations? The article name is "American Eagle Airlines destinations" not "Some of American Eagle Airlines destinations".
2A02:A451:8B2D:1:DC4F:C0B9:9118:72A7 (
talk) 21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Those both took me less than a minute to find, by the way.
SportingFlyer (
talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete- putting aside the question of whether this can be referenced, this still falls under
WP:NOTTRAVEL and
WP:NOTDIR. The article also would have to be updated constantly to maintain accuracy. Just because something can be referenced doesn't mean its worthy of being included.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 19:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Rusf10: Can you please point to the portion of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL texts where airline destinations are excluded from the project? I read it over and over again and it says nothing about the topic.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- 1. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If someone is planning a trip they can look on the airline's website to see where they travel, it is not of enecylopedic value. 2. WP:NOTDIR is probably the stronger of the two arguements: "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time." (emphasis mine) Yes, airline service is a product, being that almost all the destinations cannot be sourced in independent sources, it is not notable.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- For WP:NOTTRAVEL, I don't understand how it applies. These lists show where an airline operates, not how the cities themselves are connected so they serve virtually no purpose in that regard. For "sales catalogue" there is no pricing attached. There certainly are independent, non review, sources out there for the majority of these routes, and that's something that can be worked on. To echo Jetstreamer below, deletion is not cleanup. Garretka ( talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- ″Availability″ applies to hotel accomodation, aircraft seats, etc. I don't see airline destination articles including such information, which certainly belongs in Wikivoyage. Neither I see the prices of hotel rooms in hotel articles. Regarding ″prices and productd availabiliy″, they are offered at the corresponding websites, and these websites are included as a field both in airline and hotel infoboxes. Your interpretation of both WP:NOTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR eventually goes against the entire project. -- Jetstreamer Talk 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- It says "pricing or availability information", it need not be both. Would either of you support articles such as
List of products offered for sale by Walmart or
List of products offered for sale by the Home Depot because this is the exact same thing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- In the airline industry, availability means seats you can purchase, not the destinations you can reach. It seems to me WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTRAVEL is subject to different interpretations. And following your example, there should't be articles about mayonnaise or beverages just because they can be purchased at supermarkets.-- Jetstreamer Talk 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- It says "pricing or availability information", it need not be both. Would either of you support articles such as
List of products offered for sale by Walmart or
List of products offered for sale by the Home Depot because this is the exact same thing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy close Enough, already. Take this discussion to the DRV. This AfD reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- The current DRV
Adria Airways destinations
[4] includes only members of the
Star Alliance. American and American Eagle have nothing to do with Star Alliance. Separate matter. No FORUMSHOPPING here.
Rhadow (
talk) 20:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The current DRV will surely set precedent on all airline destination articles.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Speedy CloseKeep on this one. While I agree with the Flybe AfD, I would wait until the DRV concludes as this is "essentially the same issue in a different forum" (from WP:FORUMSHOPPING). Best to wait until conclusion of the DRV. No need to rush into this. Garretka ( talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)- Comment I find pretty unfair to keep AfDing destination articles while there's an ongoing discussion at DRV.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion is not cleanup.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment This article is not part of the DRV,
WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not a valid point. Besides, the same people arguing that this is forum shopping are the same people insisting that each article must go to AfD before deleting (you can't have it both ways).--
Rusf10 (
talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Read my comment above regarding your claim and the potential relationship between the ongoing DRV and all airline destination articles.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Quote from WP:FORUMSHOPPING: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." The DRV is about whether consensus has been achieved on this broad topic. Once that is decided, then a path forward can be developed. My preference is to AfD individual articles based on notability, but that's a discussion for after the DRV. Garretka ( talk) 22:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- If one or the articles under deletion review was AfDed again, you would have a point, but this is a different article. Like I said before, you want it both ways. Your preference is to AfD each article, but you don't want that done until a DRV involving different articles is completed.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The DRV is the first of what could be many batch deletions per the initial VPP discussion and the ANI discussion. This article would get nominated sooner or later. Yes it's a different article, but this is "essentially the same issue". And yes that is correct. Because the current batch deletion has many quality lists contained within it. That DRV will likely end in a deletion or no consensus. Nominating more articles with "essentially the same issue" while there is an ongoing discussion that will have broader implications is again, unhelpful and will not help establish a consensus. Arguments made for and against deletion here will be the exact same as what is going on there. You can argue till the cows come home but this AfD is textbook Forum Shopping because it's essentially the same issue.
Garretka (
talk) 04:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, AfD is admittedly your preferred forum for this. You're saying this is forum shopping, but at the same time saying that it actually belongs in this forum. However, what you are actually arguing for is a delay, which makes no sense. The outcome of the DRV doesn't automatically keep or delete this article.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- You've requested this article be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Not only does the nominator ask it be AfD'd on original research grounds, the DRV addresses whether these articles violate both of these. SportingFlyer ( talk) 07:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is extremely unhelpful in establishing consensus on all 444 of these pages when there is a discussion that may not involve this page in particular, but involves the subject and will establish a consensus on these pages moving forward. The outcome of the DRV will clear up where the community stands on these articles and again, will create a path forward for the remainder of these articles. Garretka ( talk) 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's basic reasoning: If the outcome of the DRV is to endorse the AfD close this paves the way for all airline destination articles to be deleted. On the contrary, if the outcome is to overturn the decision, why all these articles wouldn't be kept?--
Jetstreamer
Talk 15:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- So if the outcome of the DRV is endorse, the three of you would allow this article to be automatically deleted? I doubt it. Likewise, if the outcome is overturn, you cannot argue that this page needs to be kept simply because the other ones were. The outcome of the DRV doesn't determine what happens here.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- If the DRV is endorse it will make it easier to batch AfD articles, (I would still argue based on the notability of the subject at hand, either for or against). If the DRV overturns then it will result in further discussion as to the true meaning of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Both are subject to wide interpretations. This AfD is premature. Garretka ( talk) 17:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- So if the outcome of the DRV is endorse, the three of you would allow this article to be automatically deleted? I doubt it. Likewise, if the outcome is overturn, you cannot argue that this page needs to be kept simply because the other ones were. The outcome of the DRV doesn't determine what happens here.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, AfD is admittedly your preferred forum for this. You're saying this is forum shopping, but at the same time saying that it actually belongs in this forum. However, what you are actually arguing for is a delay, which makes no sense. The outcome of the DRV doesn't automatically keep or delete this article.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- The DRV is the first of what could be many batch deletions per the initial VPP discussion and the ANI discussion. This article would get nominated sooner or later. Yes it's a different article, but this is "essentially the same issue". And yes that is correct. Because the current batch deletion has many quality lists contained within it. That DRV will likely end in a deletion or no consensus. Nominating more articles with "essentially the same issue" while there is an ongoing discussion that will have broader implications is again, unhelpful and will not help establish a consensus. Arguments made for and against deletion here will be the exact same as what is going on there. You can argue till the cows come home but this AfD is textbook Forum Shopping because it's essentially the same issue.
Garretka (
talk) 04:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- If one or the articles under deletion review was AfDed again, you would have a point, but this is a different article. Like I said before, you want it both ways. Your preference is to AfD each article, but you don't want that done until a DRV involving different articles is completed.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment The discussion at DRV was closed as ″overturn″ [5]. I suggest to close this discussion too per WP:SNOW.-- Jetstreamer Talk 21:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Coment -- The matter at issue in the DRV was whether destination article should exist at all. The matter at issue here is whether an article should remain when five of its purported six subjects are unreferenced, and therefore are not verified. The DRV is not approval of badly referenced articles. No snow here. Rhadow ( talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no snow here. In fact, to suggest that there is, is unconscionable, there are three keeps and three deletes right now. Like I said before, the result of the DRV involving other articles does not impact the result here.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your main arguments at the DRV discussion were
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL. These two arguments were used for the original discussion at VP. It should be more than clear that these arguments are now void in view of the outcome of the DRV.--
Jetstreamer
Talk 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- DRV doesn't determine policy, its simply a place to review if a discussion was closed with the correct procedure. I don't know how you read the DRV outcome and came to the conclusion that
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL cannot apply to this particular article.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Did you read the DRV close?
"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." - WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR were the policies discussed at VPP and soundly rejected in the AfD. If that doesn't apply across the board to all these articles then I must be missing something. Garretka ( talk) 18:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Did you read the DRV close?
- DRV doesn't determine policy, its simply a place to review if a discussion was closed with the correct procedure. I don't know how you read the DRV outcome and came to the conclusion that
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL cannot apply to this particular article.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your main arguments at the DRV discussion were
WP:NOTDIR and
WP:NOTRAVEL. These two arguments were used for the original discussion at VP. It should be more than clear that these arguments are now void in view of the outcome of the DRV.--
Jetstreamer
Talk 02:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no snow here. In fact, to suggest that there is, is unconscionable, there are three keeps and three deletes right now. Like I said before, the result of the DRV involving other articles does not impact the result here.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 23:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Just in case it wasn't clear from my earlier comment, this is flagrant fotum shopping. Consensus is that these articles are notable. The DRV made that abundantly clear. It also made it clear that the reasoning stated in nomination does not apply to this kind of article, nor does the VPP discussion override conensus. Finally, AFD is not cleanup. Enough already. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the consensus of earlier discussions especially the DRV is clear that these articles are justified, and this one is as much justified as the others. I'm not going to repeat the arguments, but essentially this is appropriate content for an encyclopedia such as WP. The DRV close is the current general consensus. This was not at least initially my own personal view on what we ought to be doing, but my opinion is now different: arguments in the prior discussions have convinced me. But whether or not they would have convinced me, I respect the general idea that we to some extent should defer to those who want to include certain general classes of content, in the understanding they will treat our own similarly. The principle of a joint project is to tolerate each other. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - That the article should exist is not in question. It still needs references for Compass and Mesa. That the concept of the article was approved by DRV does not excuse it from
WP:V.
Rhadow (
talk) 11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- AFD is not cleanup. If the article should exist, it should be kept at AfD and citations should be added. That's not a deletion issue. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.