Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BasketballDog21 (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 22 July 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyJet Flight 6074.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Aviation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Aviation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Aviation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)

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. Since the deep dive by Aviationwikiflight, consensus appears to be to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Flight 6074

EasyJet Flight 6074 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No deaths or anything to make it very notable. It should be redirected to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing inherently notable about the incident per WP:EVENTCRIT, and no sign of changes to procedures or other WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that the article on EasyJet Flight 6074 is not important and notable enough. The event's details are not well-documented by reliable sources. Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. There is no signs of notability for this incident nor deaths caused. There are thousands of similar plane incidents like this and not all of them will be given their standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: with not a single wounded person, this is very far from having the lasting consequences for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep (with the possibility of draftification to improve the state of the article) – A lack of casualties does not necessarily imply non-notability. A major electrical failure leading to a near-miss with the possibility of being intercepted by fighter jets is not run-of-the-mill.
  • This incident led to multiple recommendations being issued, as well as (an) airworthiness directive(s), several being implemented which does satisfy WP:LASTING. Multiple systems were modified by Airbus as a result of this incident and several changes were also made:
  • Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:
  • The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:
  • I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has been blocked for being a disreputable sock. Borgenland (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Airbus aircraft

List of preserved Airbus aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of preserved Airbus A320 aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG. I have been unable to find reliable significant coverage on both topics, let alone any. Sources do exist albeit unreliable or non-independent such as Planespotters, OneSpotter and Airfleets and Airbus news releases just to list a few.

Per WP:NLIST. Whilst "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been", I have been unable to find any reliable sources talking about a list of preserved Airbus aircraft nor a list of preserved A320s. Some entries do have sources talking about their respective aircraft individually but the majority of the entries seem unverifiable with most of the information coming from the said sources above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related page <List of preserved Airbus A320 aircraft> because both topics are similar enough as they both cover preserved Airbus aircraft and also share the same issues. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) and Merge (2) - per @Airbus A320-100. 121.45.242.35 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Banned sock. Daniel (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kakinada Airport

Kakinada Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not significant enough. No developments after 2014. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Nomination does not state a valid rationale for deletion, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete content. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 10:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Corsica destinations

List of Air Corsica destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company ever without any attempt to summarise. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to a full list of all the destinations that Air Corsica has ever served and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is Aeroroutes, an industry-press blog run by an enthusiast that re-posts company schedule data "sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website", the other of which is an article from TradeArabia News Service based on a company press-release. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic. In fact the data on this page is largely unsourced but I assume obtained from Air Corsica's website, which is realistically the only real source for this information. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Germania destinations

List of Germania destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:V.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.

WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.

This is a WP:V failure because none of these sources are from July 2018, but this is par for the course for these articles. FOARP (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. There were no editors arguing for this to be kept on the merits, with the only keep being a procedural one (with a brief disagreement about one point stated by the nominator). As there are any number of reasons why the consensus for British Airways could be different from this article and the lack of policy or procedure saying we must apply precedent from other related discussions, the procedural keep gets weighted accordingly. If consensus is reached in a community wide RfC about this topic, the consensus of the editors in this discussion could be revisited at that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NordStar destinations

List of NordStar destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is largely a listing of where this airline does not regularly fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated" or "seasonal". What little encyclopaedic content there may be here is already summarised at the parent article.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. Either the information is taken directly from the company website, or (as in the ATO.ru and om1.ru sources) they are based on company press-releases. Links to Euronews, the BBC, and New York Times are included but these do not mention the airline at all - instead they are used to support the WP:OR conclusion that various NordStar flights are terminated.

There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

Finally this fails WP:V because whilst this is supposedly a listing of destinations served as of February 2021, none of the sources are from that date - they are all years before or years after it. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations

List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is a listing of where this airline does not fly to. As is stated in the second line "all flights are terminated". Even if it weren't, UIA is a charter airline, so when it was flying it would have gone anywhere you would have paid them to fly to. In as much as this page has any encyclopaedic content at all, it is already described at the main page about the airline so this is a duplication.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or reports of press-releases, or aggregators like Routesonline that re-post brief company statements. None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Cyprus Airways (1947–2015). If no merger takes place within a month, any editor is welcome to turn this into a "zero-byte merger" redirect. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations

List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and duplicating content that, to the extent that it is encyclopaedic, is already in the main article about the airline.

Taking the last of these first, the main article already gives a summary of the destinations it served. A complete and exhaustive listing is not needed.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. FlightRadar24 simply relays airline-provided information (as the page states: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers"). There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cyprus. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cyprus Airways - there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone page, but where the airline flew is indeed encyclopedic information. The WP:NOTs cited here really twist the purpose - none of the prongs under WP:NOTCATALOG apply here. WP:NCORP doesn't apply here because it's not an article about a corporation. The nomination also fails to understand what "indiscriminate" means - this is a very discriminate list. However the sourcing isn't there for a stand-alone page, so we can't keep the information at its current location. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "this is a very discriminate list" - where was any discrimination applied at all here? In what way is this not cover by ""Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"? WP:NCORP literally states in its very first line that "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service".
    I don't understand this combative attitude when you straight up admit that this is yet another airline destination list page that shouldn't exist. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup when you could just say that it's not properly sourced enough for a stand-alone article. And a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate - there is a finite number of entries for a related group of items. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate" - this isn't a list of every destination served on the last operating day? This includes destinations that clearly weren't being served on that day since they are "seasonal"? The list is anyway explicitly of destinations the airline might have flown to in November 2014 some months before it folded?
    WP:NOT has something like 30 headings and I've mentioned two here and given the reasons for why they are mentioned, so I don't think "throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup" is fair.
    If you list every entry in a list regardless of relevance, or whether they were even being flown to at the time in question (were "seasonal" destinations being served in November?) then I don't see where discrimination is being applied. Encyclopaedias are supposed to summarise, not be complete listings of trivia. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be their final scheduled timetable. That's discriminate encyclopedic information as it provides a scope of where the airline flew to before it folded, which is indeed relevant information about airlines. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how taking the content of a document like this and transposing it on to Wikipedia is discriminate. This schedule was any way just a future plan - one they did not actually fulfil - and so excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to understand your definition of "discriminate." SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discrimination requires making choices about what to include and what not to include. This is literally taking every service a company ever offered and including it in a list. To be discriminate, only the main services of a company need be included - the classic "this airline flies to X countries" covers it. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of DAT destinations

List of DAT destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and common sense.

Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that operates charter flights and as such they will fly whereever you are willing to pay them enough to fly to.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or Airline Routes Maps (an agent) or AeroRoutes (a blog/industry press re-posting brief company statements). None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.

A simple statement that DAT operates charter and cargo flights across Europe in the main article is sufficient to cover this, nothing from this article needs to be merged. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martinair Cargo destinations

List of Martinair Cargo destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, , WP:NCORP, and what I'm going to call the "you're joking, right?" test.

Let's take the last of those first: this is a cargo airline. Realistically they're going to fly where ever you pay enough money to send things to. Moreover this is overwhelmingly a list of places where this airline does not fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated". You're joking, right?

The WP:NOT failure is very clear: this is an exhaustive listing of company services and so fails under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It's also a listing of all services this company offered and so is indiscriminate information under WP:IINFO. I could go on with the WP:NOT failures (original research is a big one BTW) but it would be tiresome.

The WP:NCORP failures are also easily described: there is no evidence at all that a listing of all of the services offered by a cargo company as of April 2020 (or ever, actually) is a notable topic that should be covered in an encyclopaedia. None of the sources in the article meet WP:ORGIND because they all are ultimately sourced solely to the company and are coverage in local/industry press. Taking them one-by-one:

  1. The MartinAir website (which actually doesn't have the information it is used to cite...)
  2. The Best Travelstore website - a travel agent.
  3. A 404 link to a page on the Hong Kong Department of Trade and Commerce.
  4. A 404 link to a page on the website of the Journal of Commerce.

Even as a WP:SPLITLIST this page has to have stand-along notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT which this clearly does not. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Cargo routes get substantially less interest than passenger routes so I don't think this needs a standalone article or one structured with this kind of table, but Martinair#Destinations should still provide information about the airline's services. However per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations, this does not violates NOT: it is a narrow, discriminate topic without inappropriate detail; it is not "A resource for conducting business" and so the straightforward listing is not a forbidden catalogue; the fact that it's poorly sourced does not make it original research – no one did their own unverifiable analysis of anything. Reywas92Talk 14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our coverage does not depend on whether a topic is popular or not. Which services that are sourced in the article do you think should be merged? The vast majority of the services that the airline actually operates are not sourced at all, I don't see any reliably-sourced content here that can be merged that is not already in the main article about the airline.
    Is it verifiable that the services were operated and then "Terminated"? No. Linking to this source and saying that the destinations are now "terminated" is pure OR. As is saying that the services are being operated based on a bare link to this page - you can't see that ANY of these services are actually being run based on that page.
    In what way is listing every destination the airline ever flew to discriminate? FOARP (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:
–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;
–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Air Charter destinations

List of European Air Charter destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear failure of WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common-sense.

Starting with common-sense first: this is, as the name of the airline clearly states, a charter airline - it will fly to whereever you charter it to fly to so long as you pay enough. The destinations it serves are literally the whole world.

Moving on to WP:NOT, this is clearly an exhaustive list of company services and so is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of all the services that this airline possible offered at some point, which makes it indiscriminate information excluded under WP:IINFO. I could also throw in WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE, and a bunch of other headings that this fails under.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by European Air Charter are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. Only one source is cited in the article - the company website - and in reality any other source is going to be industry/local press coverage based on press-reports and company statements.

Even if this is considered a WP:SPLITLIST of the European Air Charter page, it still has to meet the requirements for a stand-alone page per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which this page manifestly does not. And again, a charter airline does not have fixed destinations so what is the point of this listing anyway? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (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.
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 delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations

List of Air Malta destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common sense.

Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!

WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.

This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.

This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;
–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to keep a list.... of places... that Air Malta... doesn't fly to...? FOARP (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because where Air Malta operated is encyclopedic information, and a verb tense is easily edited. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where... they don't fly to ... is encyclopaedic? A listing of destinations served on a random date of no actual significance, largely copied off a defunct company website, each listed as "terminated" with no other context, is "a summary of knowledge"? FOARP (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It summarises where they flew shortly before they ceased trading. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    January 2023 was more than a year before they stopped trading in March 2024. In a business where flights change from week to week that's hardly that close to that date. Even worse, this doesn't "[summarise] where they flew shortly before they ceased trading" because these are the destinations they may have flown to at any point up to ten years or more before they ceased trading (one is sourced to a 404 link visited in 2011) and plainly weren't flying to either in January 2023 or in March 2024.
    The real point you're trying to make here is that any destination an airline ever flew to is, to you, automatically of encyclopaedic value. I don't think that's a position anyone on Wikipedia outside of airline fandom would endorse. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Flights don't necessarily change weekly, and almost every flight change will be noted in at least some publication somewhere. Whenever there's a new flight to where I live it's generally news. There are airlines which wouldn't be notable enough for this information to be kept, but I am not making the argument you think I am making. The only thing we're looking at is if this is notable, and they're clearly of note: [6] [7] [8] [9] and an older [10] Most of your concerns can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to cover off these sources:
    • Air Service One is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is also entirely based on output from Cirium which is an aggregator of data from airlines. Ultimately everything in this piece comes direct from the Airline and is not independent.
    • Simple Flying is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is entirely based on statements from the airline, again, not independent of the source.
    • Aviation Week is, again, industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The Central Bank of Malta (another branch of the Maltese government that owns the airlines) whose report is quoted is not independent of the subject, and anyway discusses the new airline KM Malta, and not the old airline.
    • Live and Let's Fly is a industry blog. The piece is based on a press-release from KM Malta.
    • Another Aviation Week piece based on a press-release.
    Every single thing here is exactly the kind of run-of-the-mill reportage that WP:NORG clearly tells us doesn't count towards establishing notability - see particular WP:TRADES. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it comes from the airline, the airline publishes its schedules and then it gets reported on in trade publications and in normal media: [11] It's not a good reason for excluding perfectly encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which counts for NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the airline is no longer operating I would suggest a reorganization so it's not just a table full of "Terminated", but my points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations apply here as well. Reywas92Talk 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks the needed seondary sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:NCORP. The aviation sources would seemingly help little for establishing notability per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Air Malta#Destinations. Even if this table were notable, WP:PAGEDECIDE notes that there times when it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the target for the merge is not too big as to not be able to handle the table, and it makes sense to keep these two together in one article so as to present the information on the destinations within the broader context of the article on the airline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. We shouldn't be hosting a list of every single place that Air Malta flew to in history. This is an indiscriminate collection of information because no careful judgment or selectivity was involved in making the list. Even if the airline flew to some random city for a couple months in the 1980s, it gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Egregious failure of IINFO/NCORP. The entries in this list are primary/non-independently-sourced and have no evidence of ever having been encyclopedic, so I would object to a merge. If any given destination is actually BALASP then it can be discussed in the main article, but nothing in this list is worth retaining. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2024 (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.
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 merge‎ to Vietnam Airlines. I've also put each continent into separate collapsible tables to avoid having a long article. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.

Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).

WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.

That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:

  1. The Vietnam Airlines website
  2. A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
  3. A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
  4. The Vietnam Airlines website
  5. An industry-press article based on a company press-release
  6. A local news story based on a company press-release
  7. A link to the Berlin airport website saying that Tegel airport has been shut down - the conclusion that Vietnam airlines ever flew here is not supported and basically OR
  8. An announcement about future plans in industry press, with comments from the CEO of Munich airport who are obviously also not independent of the airline as they are a business-partner of theirs
  9. An announcement in government-controlled press about flights to India, since Vietnam Airlines is state-owned and managed by a board appointed by the government this is not independent
  10. Announcements from the company about future plans relayed via Aeroroutes, which is a blog/industry press, and also not significant coverage since it so short
  11. Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
  12. A short Reuters piece about flights to Moscow being suspended in 2022 based on an announcement in Vietnamese state-owned press - not significant coverage of the topic of the destinations since it is so short and is anyway not reliably and independently sourced. Additionally this does not support the statement that flights are terminated now in 2024 so this is OR.
  13. Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
  14. A Condé Nast travel-magazine article based on a statement from the Vietnam Airlines CEO. Whilst other sources are also quoted in the article, all of these sources ultimately track back to Vietnam Airlines - the Airline Geeks article (industry press/blog) is sourced to a company press release, the Vietnam+ article is sourced to statements by the CEO, the Twitter source is from Vietnam Airlines Twitter account. There is no independent reporting here.

As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the numerous WP:NOT violations listed by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You're making things up:
    • WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
    • WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
    • This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
    • It's not an advertisement and it's patently ridiculous to call this promotional. It's perfectly appropriate to provide a straightforward list of a company's services. Is it a promotional advertisement to list a movie studio's films, a gaming company's products, a brand's flavors, or a train's routes?
    • This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but this and this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
    • This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
    • This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
    • This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
    • NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
    • You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.
I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.
NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.
Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.
The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".
I don't get how you can repeatedly admit that this is badly-sourced, not produce any examples of independent, 3rd-party coverage to fix that (Aviationweek is industry press and their article is based on a press-release, the VN Express article is also based on a press-release, and anyway only mentions the airline briefly), and then still conclude that the article should be kept. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.
If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.
Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".
Some other sources include [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92Talk 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:
–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;
–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the current destinations, this is essentially Vietnam Airlines' route map converted into a list. Our job is not to store schedule data that's already available on other websites like the airline's or FlightConnections.com. In addition listing every terminated destination runs contrary to WP:IINFO. 'Indiscriminate' can be defined as "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." In my view there is no careful judgment involved in creating a list of every single place that Vietnam Airlines has flown to in its 70-year history. I don't see the need to record that the carrier at one point flew to some random city that appears on its route map from 1964. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Aviation&oldid=1235944707"