The deletionists have won

[The Garbage Scow]

I don't recall if I've mentioned this here before, but check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawing, Alaska (T-H-L). The result was keep, despite the fact that nobody even knew exactly where this was, it is not in GNIS, but it was, at one time, a "populated place". This was despite the fact that, as I argued at the time, the entire populated place was also the NHRP site Alaska Nellie's Homestead (T-H-L), which we already had a perfectly good article on. I eventually did find the place myself when I happened to be over in that area and passed "Lawing Drive" and knew that had to be it.

The "nearest city" to Alaska Nellie's Homestead (T-H-L) (according to the infobox) is Lawing, Alaska, which redirects to Alaska Nellie's Homestead when you click it. Seriously, that is perfect and I hope it stays that way forever.

[Beeblebrox]

Mostly it's proved you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes cruft if you're going to argue stuff that's placed on the National Register is less worthy of encyclopedic inclusion than exhaustive lists of where airlines at every airport go.

NRHP articles almost never show up at AfD because the submission form requires a statement of "significance", which is to say "explain why this is notable enough to list." Notability battles usually involve a guideline that skips this step so that people can churn out articles on items that really nobody sane could care about and, as it happens, the authors don't really have to bother to verify the truth about.

I was rather surprised to find an NRHP listing here in Homer, and it wasn't the Salty Dawg Saloon (T-H-L), which is made of three small historic buildings. Rumor has it the owners are aware it could be an NRHP property, but then they would need permission to make any significant modifications. So, the actual NRHP listing is the Thorn-Stingley House (T-H-L), which is just a house that apparently shows unique architecture. I guess because a lot of homes from that era were torn down and replaced or heavily remodeled. The metal roof is typical of Homer, the little dormers are something yuou don't see often anymore, but it's just like, somebody's house.

[The Blue Newt]

Mostly it's proved you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes cruft if you're going to argue stuff that's placed on the National Register is less worthy of encyclopedic inclusion than exhaustive lists of where airlines at every airport go.

NRHP articles almost never show up at AfD because the submission form requires a statement of "significance", which is to say "explain why this is notable enough to list." Notability battles usually involve a guideline that skips this step so that people can churn out articles on items that really nobody sane could care about and, as it happens, the authors don't really have to bother to verify the truth about.

I was rather surprised to find an NRHP listing here in Homer, and it wasn't the Salty Dawg Saloon (T-H-L), which is made of three small historic buildings. Rumor has it the owners are aware it could be an NRHP property, but then they would need permission to make any significant modifications. So, the actual NRHP listing is the Thorn-Stingley House (T-H-L), which is just a house that apparently shows unique architecture. I guess because a lot of homes from that era were torn down and replaced or heavily remodeled. The metal roof is typical of Homer, the little dormers are something yuou don't see often anymore, but it's just like, somebody's house.

It would be difficult to get more architectural misinformation into a single article than the Thorn-Stingley House (T-H-L), which is sadder still because it is probably quoting the source directly.

Where’s Doncram (T-C-L) when you need him? (Don’t answer that.)

[Ming]

It would be difficult to get more architectural misinformation into a single article than the Thorn-Stingley House (T-H-L), which is sadder still because it is probably quoting the source directly.

Have you forgotten the eight-sided hexagon barn??

[ArmasRebane]

Some NRHPs are likely to never be more than a meaty stub because the only major researched source for them are the NRHP reports, but I don't actually think "permastubs" are a bad thing assuming they're considered; in an old-style encyclopedia you wouldn't get much more than that on most subjects anyhow.

Perma-stubs like the "maybe we exist" settlements, meanwhile, will essentially never have any real context added.

[rnu]

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles was closed 18 November 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (T-C-L) who did the unthinkable: he closed the RfC based on strength of arguments and not on vote count. Gasp! What's worse, he closed against the aviation fanboys:

After reviewing the !votes and discussion, it is clear that there is consensus that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. There is not a consensus for wholesale removal of such tables, but tables without independent, reliable, secondary sourcing, and where such sourcing cannot be found, should not be in the articles.
This is one of the rare cases with an RFC where, numerically, the responses are close, but arguments strongly grounded in established policy make a consensus clear. Wikipedia:Closing discussions says "The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." In this discussion we have many !voters responding with strong policy-based rationales, and many responding with personal opinion. Additionally reading more than just the bolded yes or no, there is a common thread found in responses supporting and opposing the tables, as well as non-bolded and other !votes. That thread is "articles should include such tables when including a table would be due... all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered... tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources... WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns... If it is unmaintained / not well sourced - it should be either repaired or deleted just like every other wikipedia article." This common thread, as well as the strength of arguments leads me to read consensus against the plurality of bolded !votes.
Addressing the arguments, the strongest and by far most common argument put forth by those opposed to the tables is WP:NOTALLSORTSOFSTUFF. WP:NOT is policy, and the strength of the arguments citing it are recognized by those supporting inclusion of the tables. There were also no strong arguments against the interpretation of WP:NOT, other than disagreement that it should apply. Merely stating that something is encyclopedic without elaborating how it does not fall foul of existing policy is not a strong counter-argument. A counter-argument saying that WP:V is a counter to WP:NOT, for instance, is weakened by the text of both policies, with WP:V linking specifically to WP:NOT and saying "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." Another argument for excluding the tables was the editorial overhead of maintaining them, but this was significantly less widely cited and lacks the solid policy basis of WP:NOT arguments.
Many of those supporting provided weak arguments, with several essentially rooted in WP:ILIKEIT. Merely asserting that the information is useful or helpful doesn't demonstrate that it is encyclopedic. There were also several with reasoning that did not address and were strongly rebutted by the policy based arguments of those opposed to inclusion. There were also arguments that the tables provide an idea of how well served or active an airport is, but those arguments were weakened by pointing out that the context could be provided in prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

But worry not:

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
-- H.P. Lovecraft, The Nameless City

Therefore the close is now up for review.

[orangepi]

A lot of the arguments against the destination tables can be summarized as "we must delete this because it is useful". Some of the others are "we need to encourage editors to engage in [[WP:SYNTH]] rather than presenting data in an easy-to-understand format".

Ultimately, Wikipedia these days loves useless "consensus" such as "articles should include such tables when including a table would be due." That is a tautology that is entirely useless towards the purpose of the discussion - which is to determine when including a table would be due.

[Ming]

The problem with all these destination lists is that they're never really accurate. If they list only current service, then the airline itself is always the better source and they run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; if they are historical they are inevitably inaccurate: it requires a great deal of historical research unless you can find a real historian who has already done the work for you.

[The Garbage Scow]

[Guido den Broeder]

I am so angry at Wikipedia right now after seeing yet another proposal on the village pump to delete articles en-masse. So much knowledge has been destroyed by deletionists and if you look at the deletion log and AFD archives literally over a million articles have been deleted. The entire base of Wikipedia is untrustable now as deletionists can delete it at will. Why did deletionists gain so much power and effectivley be the arbiters of knowledge. Wikipedia has wasted 18 years of my life and seeing the efforts of millions of people destroyed in the largest destruction of knowledge since the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. I hate deletionism and notability nerds and will be focusing on rescuing articles for inclusionist wikis for the rest of my wiki career.

Feel free to copy any article in need of saving to Wikisage. We have already rescued droves of perfectly fine articles in Dutch.

[Ron Lybonly]

The problem with all these destination lists is that they're never really accurate. If they list only current service, then the airline itself is always the better source and they run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; if they are historical they are inevitably inaccurate: it requires a great deal of historical research unless you can find a real historian who has already done the work for you.

I’ve used them for years frequently for travel planning and found them very well-maintained and current, even for obscure places in Central Asia, (The one exception was during early Covid for a few weeks).

I’ve not found a good alternative. Pre-Wikipedia, I went to individual airline sites and spent 5-10 minutes at each one digging around for a route map or a “where we fly”. Wikivoyage doesn’t maintain this sort of data. I could blindly punch in days and airports into Kayak but that’s a time-waster.

These tables are most useful when I’m considering alternative airports: use Montreal or drive to Burlington, VT for a better fare? But then where can I go from Burlington? Ditto low fare outlying airports like Orlando-Sanford or Paris-Beauvais. Or, which is closer to my ultimate destination: LAX or Ontario International? If it’s Ontario, can I get there easily?

It looks like Wikipedia is going to proudly junk these tables as a matter of principle/dogma.

Someone started removing the table from the Las Vegas airport article and got angry pushback.

Does anybody know where else this kind of info exists?

I miss those old paper Official Airline Guides.

[rnu]

Funnily enough there is talk about a second RfC review, because while the current review wants a more restrictive resolution other people want to have the whole thing thrown out.

I will say that there are a number of us frustrated with the close of this RfC for the complete opposite grounds of the user initiating this review for several different reasons, and that this user may have initiated the RfC review in order to preempt us from doing so. My ground is that the closer reached a conclusion not supported by the discussion (few people talked about primary/secondary sources in the review, only one discussed WP:DUE) and I believe another argument is that the conclusion goes against WP:PRIMARY sourcing as WP:DUE does not discuss primary sources, but honestly that is not my argument to present, and we weren't quite ready. I don't know if this precludes us from opening a different RfC review now considering how odd this situation is. SportingFlyer T·C 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I would be advocating for the entire discussion to be overturned to a simple "no consensus," which is in reading with the discussion: about half of the participants think the information is not encyclopedic, while the other half think the information is encyclopedic. I am of the latter half - WP:NOT generally lists things that are included in things other than encyclopedias, but the tables in question do not fit into any of those categories (I am not convinced by the WP:NOTTRAVEL arguments because this is not information commonly found in your local bookseller's collection of travel guides, and Wikivoyage has specifically said they do not want to maintain this.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

[ScotFinnRadish]

These tables are most useful when I’m considering alternative airports: use Montreal or drive to Burlington, VT for a better fare? But then where can I go from Burlington? Ditto low fare outlying airports like Orlando-Sanford or Paris-Beauvais.
...
Does anybody know where else this kind of info exists?

https://www.btv.aero/flights/where-we-fly
https://flysfb.com/flights/destinations/
https://www.aeroportparisbeauvais.com/vols/destinations

[rnu]

[...]
Does anybody know where else this kind of info exists?

I miss those old paper Official Airline Guides.

https://www.flightconnections.com/
https://www.flightsfrom.com/
https://www.directflights.com/

[FelinaLavandula]

Thank God for this close review. I’d never have been able to plan my flight to Montréal without Wikipedia. There’s just no other way. When I look at the articles for major airports, I want two-thirds of it to be taken up with an uncollapsible table of information I truly care about as a reader, and I won’t settle for anything less. In fact, I think those articles should be only tables with no other information. I don’t know how I could plan my vacations when there’s such useless fluff as so-called “history” sections distracting me from those beautiful destinations. Why, how I love to read them and picture myself there… Cancun, Paris, Belmopan…

[Ron Lybonly]

[...]
Does anybody know where else this kind of info exists?

I miss those old paper Official Airline Guides.

https://www.flightconnections.com/
https://www.flightsfrom.com/
https://www.directflights.com/

Thanks - these are very handy.

[Carcharoth]

A Mr. Russell would like to have a word with you.

Bertrand was never Mr. Russell. He was The Honourable Bertrand Russell for much of his life and then became The Earl Russell in his late 50s. He was Prisoner 2917 Russell in 1916 and Prisoner 8078 Russell in 1961.

Hilarious! Thank you for posting that. It prompted me to actually fully read the Betrand Russell article on Wikipedia. Sent to prison for 6 days in 1961 aged 89! Lived to the age of 97, and fortunate to survive a plane crash in 1948.

[Zoloft]

A Mr. Russell would like to have a word with you.

Bertrand was never Mr. Russell. He was The Honourable Bertrand Russell for much of his life and then became The Earl Russell in his late 50s. He was Prisoner 2917 Russell in 1916 and Prisoner 8078 Russell in 1961.

Hilarious! Thank you for posting that. It prompted me to actually fully read the Betrand Russell article on Wikipedia. Sent to prison for 6 days in 1961 aged 89! Lived to the age of 97, and fortunate to survive a plane crash in 1948.

And also: