Deletion of Adria Airways destinations

Comment: Although I already raised this point at the Village Pump and was soundly in the minority, I feel that these pages provide useful encyclopedic information about the "reach" of each airline that would be less useful if reduced to a vague summary. Moreover, I feel that  is not really relevant, since these lists are pretty useless as travel guides since they do not indicate routes that are flown. I am not sure of the exact guidelines for "implementing" a consensus at VP, so to the extent that that consensus is binding, I accept and respect the consensus from VP. However, I feel that since that discussion was not tagged on any of the concerned pages, it is worth soliciting opinions from those who may watch these pages but do not follow VP discussions, and thus that it is valid to have a full discussion here. If the usual practice here is to simply accept the result of Village Pump discussions, then I apologize for attempting to rehash the argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: per community consensus, |we are not a travel guide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: as per  & . This is an encyclopedia, not a website selling plane tickets
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL||WP:NOTCATALOG)

Comment: per  from parent pages and for  meeting  and lack of any valid deletion rationale apart from extra-policy deletion discussion at VP
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPLITLIST||WP:GNG)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INKLESS)

Comment: valid lists, and could be expanded with reasons for opening/closing to make it even more encyclopedic. Where an airline flies to is a central part of what they are, just like listing what planes they use. I can't see how the lists are useful as travel guides, so I fail to see the point of mentioning 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: The way I see things,  involves detailed information regarding each destination, not mentioning them in a list. Furthermore, some of the articles has an introductory section regarding the history of the destinations, and this is certainly encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTRAVEL)

Comment: please observe the extremely |non-neutral notification https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines&diff=prev&oldid=823132810 here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: Many flights, by themselves, come close to satisfying . For example, UAL 143{{Cite news|first=Aaron|last=Schilder|first2=Danielle|last2=Keys|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2012/05/22/united-airlines-to-begin-direct-denver-to-tokyo-flights/|title=United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flights|date=2012-05-22|work=The Denver Post|access-date=2018-01-30|language=en-US}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnbc.com/id/100804057|title=Sake Toast: United Starts Denver-Tokyo 787 Flight|last=Booth|first=Darren|date=2013-06-10|work=CNBC|access-date=2018-01-30}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/02/21/dbj-special-report-denvers-dream-of.html|title=Special Report: United Airlines and the quest for a Denver-Tokyo flight|access-date=2018-01-30|work=Denver Business Journal}}{{Cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.jp/triport/narita-denver_b_5649795.html|title=成田からの直行便就航一周年！スポーツとビールの街、アメリカ コロラド州「デンバー」とは|date=2014-08-05|work=HuffPost Japan|access-date=2018-01-31|language=ja-JP}}. Since individual flights, for which the  details are omitted from the lists of destinations, verge on notable, the lists of destinations should be retained
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:INKLESS. Keep all or merge into the airline articles themselves. One or the other. If we're going to delete these lists, we'd have to delete every other list on WP. These are mostly very well referenced and up to date, and a lot of hard work has gone into making sure that is the case. What is the purpose of removing this information, then? Wikipedia has come a long way since it's inception -- and if it can be a source of greater information why not let it be?  certainly does not apply, as it's not even close to being a travel guide. I'm okay with merging them with the actual airline articles themselves (potentially as a collapsible section)...but removing them altogether? Absolutely not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: per consensus at Village Pump, citing . There's nothing to stop any main article referring to broad destinations of an airline service - or indeed unusual ones - (which must constantly change over the years), and citing a url to where that information can be found. If it can't be found, then these lists are just . And I say this as someone who generally dislikes seeing content deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:OR)

Comment: In every case there is an obvious |alternative to deletion – merger into the main page about the airline, which should obviously say something about each airline's network and coverage.  This alternative is preferred, per our deletion policy , and so we shouldn't even be having this discussion.  The airlines in this bundle are mostly quite major and so there is extensive literature about the development and nature of their networks; works such as https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hw7PCwAAQBAJ&dq=lufthansa+hub+network&source=gbs_navlinks_s Airline Network Development in Europe and its Implications for Airport Planning.  The route networks of these airlines are therefore notable and so any deficiencies are just a matter of ordinary editing.  Our editing policies  and  therefore apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: as all articles violate the explicitly named . These articles should be migrated to Wikivoyage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: as per . There are many more lists less notable and more worthy of deletion than this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PAPER)

Comment: per community consensus and  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: valid  of the parent airline articles. Destinations are an integral facet of airlines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPLITLIST)

Comment: This AFD including Singapore Airlines destinations, which I was reading. The purpose of this article appears to be because of . As such, the list could be merged into the Singapore Airlines article, but would make it much too unwieldy. Wikiproject Airlines does allow or even specify destinations section. I believe there should be a Wikipedia-wide conference to decide across the board what should be included. It seems that some areas of Wikipedia allow very detailed minutae and some areas don't. The destinations list appears to be average in the minutiae scale and, therefore, should be retained for now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SUBARTICLE)