Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NordStar 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 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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Russia. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the 2018 RfC. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations, which vacated the 2018 RFC, that there is not a broad consensus to delete these, and there should be a wider discussion such as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#New RFC for Airline destinations tables that may result in recommendations for reform rather than many duplicative AFDs. I am not going to debate your gish gallop on all of these – particularly the false, out-of-context nonsense that that is a forbidden catalogue, because this is obviously not "a resource for conducting business". Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom in this case is not based on the 2018 RFC. A no-consensus close (partly based on the a train-wreck) is just that: not a consensus. It says nothing about this specific article. FOARP (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73 - I guess what you're doing here is clarifying that you're previous vote was not only based on the 2018 RFC, correct? FOARP (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't intend to !vote twice. I've struck the second one. But indeed, my initial !vote was based on the WP:NOT violations and other points you raised as nom, and on the rationale behind the 2018 RfC result, not on the RfC result per se. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I don't think the 2018 RFC was "vacated" by the later discussion because, very obviously, a no-consensus close cannot do that, since it is isn't a consensus to do anything. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely: no consensus implies that the status quo continues. But for the avoidance of doubt, the rationale that led to the RfC result is more important here than the result itself. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a mirror of airline schedule databases. Additionally there is no need for us to document every single place that NordStar once flew to over the course of its existence. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:59, 25 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.