Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braniff International Airways destinations

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Braniff International Airways destinations

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

Non-notable destination list for long-defunct airline. No independent refs and one self-published one. This has been the subject of a long-running low level edit war to redirect to Braniff International Airways. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and lock it already. One source, and nobody except flight enthusiasts are looking up destination cities for an airline thirty years dead. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an article like this for pretty much all the major airlines. See Category:Lists of airline destinations, which includes plenty of defunct airlines, including for example, Pan Am destinations and TWA destinations. The information is readily sourceable from timetables and news articles. So why attack this particular article? I imagine someone is going to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this isn't about a few similar articles: practice shows a longstanding consensus that destination information should be part of the encyclopedic coverage of an airline. If some editors think that there's been an actual change in consensus about this, then let's have a real discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation to test that. Otherwise, deleting this particular list simply creates a new hole in our coverage of Braniff, which is the antithesis of encyclopedia building. -Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'why attack this particular article?' Because, as I said in the nom, this article has been in a state of edit war for a long time. Note that Pan Am destinations and TWA destinations appear to have in depth independent sourcing, where as this page does not. I have no doubt that there is WP:ROUTINE sourcing for this, but that is not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and salt per nomination. Poor sourcing, continually recreated by what appear to be the same editor hiding behind an rotating IP. Nothing here that can't be incorporated into the main article.
Comment since I nominated this article User:Arxiloxos has made a heroic attempt to find and add sources. I commend them for that. None of the sources appears other than WP:ROUTINE to me and in particular there appears to be no in depth independent discussion of Braniff International Airways destinations. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with that characterization. The material I've linked to so far is more than simple route announcements. And it's just a start. There are entire books and many, many lengthy feature articles about Braniff's history, and one of main things they discuss is how Braniff's route structure, and its unprecedented expansion to additional destinations in the late 1970s, led to its demise.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Braniff was one of the world's major airlines; the sources exist; and lists like this are part of pretty much every other comparable airline's coverage at Wikipedia. The evident determination of deletion advocates to see this deleted, nevertheless, is frustrating.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Braniff International Airways and lock per above. These destination lists are trivial at best even for a major airline, and only if it is still around, so the information might be useful to somebody. Smaller airlines do not warrant such lists, as the larger ones barely do themselves. Braniff was an american commuter airline with the vast majority of it's destinations being US cities, and didn't have anywhere near the world coverage of say, TWA or PanAm, and the complete lack of sourcing is proof of this. Braniff has also been long gone for 30 years or so. Aside from a small niche of enthusiasts, this old information is of no real use to anyone, and is certainly not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being a crap article is no reason to delete, just need improving. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and destination lists from defunct airlines are just as notable as current ones. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I can see both sides of this, I would like to point out that the article received 345 views in the month before this AfD went up, which is hardly a large amount, but even taking into account bot views or whatever, a few people are clearly using it. The article is very low quality, but there are probably enough references for this, even if they are trivial in nature, present. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional sources added since this AfD began push the article across the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable list of very little use but I am ok with a redir to break the stalemate. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the policy-based way of breaking a deadlock when there is no consensus for deletion. WP is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia contain historical as well as current information. WP is not an airline guide. If it were, we'd delete the article as soon as they went out of business. But the notability their routes had, remains forever. Even a few current users show there's a use fore the information. Even if nobody had looked at it last month, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to keep notable information around for whomever may want to use it in the future. I could suggest many possibilities besides airline buffs--checking historical references, checking mentions in fiction, studying the transportation history of a particular city . And even if the hobbyists were the only group, it's a sizable hobby, and in a sense WP is a combination of the interests of all significant hobbies. I myself have as little prospective interest as anyone else here, but that's not the way I judge notability. the encyclopedia isn't written for me alone. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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