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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation/archive

Pan American Airways (disambiguation) (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)

Redundant disambiguation page. There is already a comprehensive dab page at Pan Am (disambiguation); this page instead only disambiguates between two articles which could be disambiguated via hatnote if necessary, or not at all, now that their leads have been clarified, and the relationship between the articles in question has been explained much more meaningfully there. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Not much to discuss, really. But if you delete it, just make sure that "Pan American Airways" (Pan American world Airways's earlier name) redirects to the "Pan Am (disambiguation)" disambiguation page. Otherwise you will recreate the problem the deleted disambgation page was trying to correct. (Making sure users can find what they want easily always is a higher priority than curating the numner of disambuguation pages.) Mdnavman (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I'm not sure what you suggest is necessary: Pan American Airways currently redirects to Pan Am, and on that article there is a rather prominent hatnote that lists both the Pan American Airways articles in question. That seems adequately disambiguated to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austral Líneas Aéreas 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:NLIST.

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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2011, but the part that is sourced is sourced to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like airlineroute.net, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Argentina. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lion Air Group 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:NLIST.

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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old timetables, the Aeroroutes.com/Routesonline.com blogs, and run-of-the-mill news reports based on company announcements and press-releases. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor are articles based on company statements/press-releases since they are written entirely using material from the airline. The fact that the sourcing here is also a total WP:REFBOMB only points to the degree to which this is original research in primary sources, synthesising them to produce this list.

WP:NLIST is failed because there is not a single, independent, reliable, 3rd-party source here giving significant coverage to the subject of Lion Air Group's destinations as a group. At best what we have here are, again, articles based on press-releases and company statements, without fact-checking. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Indonesia. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic catalogue style information. Already covered in adequate, maybe more than adequate, detail at Lion Air#Destinations. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic. See WP:NOT. Lorstaking (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LAM Mozambique 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, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is supposed to be a list of place LAM flew to in February 2021, but instead is largely a list of places that LAM wasn't flying to in February 2021, as is indicated by the majority of them being listed as "terminated". Without these the list would be quite short and redundant given the coverage already on the LAM Mozambique Airlines page. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used 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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. The listing also includes original research since services are claimed to have been terminated or still operated in February 2021 without any source explicitly saying so, based on comparison of decades-old timetables.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old LAM timetables, the Aeroroutes.com blog, and old copies of Flight International's world airline directory. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor is the directory since it was written entirely using material from the airline. Additionally the directory simply listed the details of every airline regardless of notability making it an indiscriminate source, the equivalent of a Yellow Pages listing. Finally Flight International is trade-press coverage and the listing of destinations provided in it is not significant coverage since it is a single-paragraph bare listing without commentary. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Africa. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. The current destinations are just the airline's route map in list form. In addition I see no need to record every single city this airline has ever flown to. By contrast the parent article does a nice job of discussing the evolution of LAM's route network over the decades.

  Regarding original research, I'm not entirely sure it's present. I think the idea is if a destination appears in an old route map but not in the current one, that means it was terminated. So technically you would have to cite both route maps and expect the reader to infer what you mean. I guess that would be considered OR, but for me the larger issue is that a list of every destination in history is a case of IINFO. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think without question taking two primary sources and then inferring something they don't actually say (and for which there are other explanations) is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Actually this goes for every item on the list, not just the "terminated" ones, since they are all based on a primary source having said that a service was on offer years ago, and assuming it was still on offer in August 2024. I agree that WP:IINFO/WP:NOTDB is probably a bigger issue. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LATAM Brasil 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, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is in large part a list of places that LATAM Brasil wasn't regularly flying to in January 2024, as is indicated by many of them being listed as "terminated"/seasonal or as not being operated by LATAM Brazil. The destinations flown to by LATAM Brasil are already adequately summarised in LATAM Airlines Brasil#Destinations, and their historical development is already discussed at LATAM Airlines Brasil#History, meaning this page is redundant. Wikipedia is not the place to seek to publish original historical research about where Airlines used to fly.

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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely unsourced, and has been since at least 2015, but the part that is sourced is sourced to the company website, enthusiast blogs like Routesonline, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

For the same reasons I am also nominating List of LATAM Perú destinations which suffers from all of the same problems. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, Brazil, and Peru. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business. The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This a is substantially the same information as the company publishes themselves, as is indicated by the use of the company website and company publications/press-releases as the source for them. Simply transcribing that on to Wiki is reproducing a catalogue, and indiscriminate. I note that you don’t cite even a single source to address the NCORP issues. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to expand on the original research issues raised in the nom, let's take the listing of Caracas as a "terminated" destination. This is cited to a 404 link to a May 2016 article on the Airlineroutes.com blog, which apparently was titled "LATAM Gradually Ends Venezuela Service late-May 2016". Setting aside that this is a WP:V fail because it's 404, and a low-quality source, instantly you can see that this is problematic because the service was described as "gradually" ending at some point in the future by routesonline.com, without any indication that it did end, nor is there any indication that the service wasn't being operated in January 2024. In actual fact LATAM Brasil are selling flights from Caracas right now on their website and probably were in January as well.

This is exactly the kind of problem you would expect to get when you synthesise primary sources through original research and exactly the reason why it is something we do not do on Wikipedia, yet it is used throughout this article and indeed in every airline destination-list article. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech 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, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Czech Airlines wasn't flying to in February 2024, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Czech Airlines only flew to four destinations in February 2024, all of which are already mentioned on the Czech Airlines page, making this page redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical sourcing for that (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly.

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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely sourced to old timetables published by the airline (e.g., this one), or to the company website, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business, particularly if they're about to cease conducting business! The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This airline literally only flew to four destinations "As of February 2024". What is the point of listing places it possibly used to fly to at some point, but didn't fly to in Feb 2024, based on original research in primary sources? If the answer is "because of historical importance", then where are the historians covering this topic? PS - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Malta destinations which recently closed as delete, which also covered an airline whose destinations were all "terminated", and where you made substantially the same arguments. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To expand on the WP:OR issue discussed above, take the listing of Tirana as a "Terminated" destination on this page. This is cited to a 1966 pamphlet issued by the airline, but that surely doesn't support a claim that the destination was "terminated" in February 2024? In fact there's no way to reach that conclusion with this data, because even if Tirana isn't included in Czech Airlines' current services, there's a bunch of different reasons why that might be so that don't involve them previously having gone there but now having terminated the service, including errors in the original claim (or the later claim that they don't fly there), Tirana having been a destination they planned to go to but never went to, Tirana being part of a wider network, and the flight still being operated.

In fact, according to the airline website, Czech Airlines do still fly to Tirana.

Now this might seem like a minor, one-off error, but in fact this entire list was largely assembled using the same approach of synthesising primary sources to reach a conclusion that they don't actually support. Moreover this is repeated across the entire corpus of airline-destination articles as a whole. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nellore 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)

Always been a proposed airport, no developments. Appears to be TOOSOON. Can be recreated if the airport actually reaches construction or approval stages. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "proposed" project is still going through designs, plans, bids, contracts, budget, approvals and is too early to warrant a standalone Page on this airport. Case of WP:TOOSOON and not notable as of yet. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG. Charliehdb (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Dagadarthi or Nellore. This appears to have attracted a lot of coverage already, but if it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article yet we should merge to one of the above articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aeromar 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, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Aeromar wasn't flying to in January 2023, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Since all of the destinations that were active in January 2023 are mentioned on the Aeromar page, this page is redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) interest for that.

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 ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Aviation. FOARP (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Orientls (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In concurrence with the nominator's assessment. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a note that this article, too, is basically original research. Take the statement that the service to Flores, Guatemala is "Terminated". This is cited to an October 2021 article on the www.transponder1200.com blog discussing future plans to start flights to Flores. Presumably, Flores was listed as terminated by Aeromar as of January 2023 because that destination wasn't listed on Aeromar's website. The problem here is that there's no evidence that Aeromar actually ever flew to Flores, the conclusion that they did but then the service was cancelled is simply a synthesis of low-quality primary sources or exactly the kind excluded by WP:NOT. This kind of issue affects most listings on this page, and indeed every airline-destination article. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Gold Airways (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)

I am nominating the Wikipedia article on RMA Gold Airways for deletion because it violates several key Wikipedia policies, particularly those related to notability, verifiability, and neutrality. RMA Gold Airways never operated any aircraft, had no crew, and failed to launch its proposed services, meaning it did not achieve any significant presence or impact in the aviation industry. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article, which this airline lacks. The article relies primarily on newspaper sources that provide speculative and critical commentary, with some citations explicitly referring to the airline as "pretend." This raises concerns about verifiability and neutrality, as the article gives undue weight to an entity that never existed in a functional capacity.

Furthermore, retaining this article violates Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the sections that prohibit hosting content about subjects that do not meet notability criteria and that function as promotion. The article presents unverified and speculative content, making it more akin to advertising for an unrealised venture rather than an encyclopaedic entry. By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. Ansett (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it does have some issues with notability, it's hardly a promotion. The proposed airline has been out of business for over a decade, and this article pretty much reflects what information already exists outside of Wikipedia, which has been reported in reliable sources. Unexpectedinquisition (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Comment This is an interesting page I haven't encountered before. The page had been nominated for deletion twice and had been kept. It's the third nomination now. As per the justifications for keeping the page from the first nomination for deletion, the company "has attracted genuine media coverage is itself evidence that it meets WP:CORP" the venture failed, but the company gained significant coverage and notability (notoriety, I might say.) Prof.PMarini (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cubana de Aviación 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 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 ever flown to, however briefly,. are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is entirely sourced either to the company website or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability - indeed one is actually a link to what appears to be a review of the film Cars 3.

The overwhelming majority of destinations listed here are listed as "Terminated" so this list is also un-necessary, and already adequately covered by the sentence "Cubana operates flights to over 20 destinations in Cuba, Europe, the Caribbean, North, Central and South America" in the main article. To the extent that there is any encyclopaedic interest in Cubana's previous destinations, this is already covered by the page History of Cubana de Aviación. This page is therefore entirely redundant. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Cuba. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I said in other deletion discussions regarding airline destinations, in the case of mass removal of these articles I will quit Wikipedia for good. I have neither the time nor the will to discuss this over and over again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO. As the flag carrier of Cuba, Cubana de Aviación certainly has a unique history, and it is entirely appropriate to discuss the development of its route network over time, which people have done in the parent article. What I cannot support is a list of every single city this airline has flown to since it was established almost a century ago. I see no need for us to document that at one point in its existence Cubana flew to some random destination that appears in its 1949 timetable. Such a list falls outside the scope of our encyclopedia.

  As a side note the link mentioned above can be found in the Internet Archive where it leads to an article about Cubana flights to Martinique. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per repeated precedent. The closure of the most recent one I remember cited Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles in determining that there is no consensus for deletion. In the AfD review the "no consensus" close was endorsed, a number of paths forward were suggested to those trying to delete these articles to establish a new consensus. Instead, it seems that these disruptive nominations are continuing. Worth noting that there was yet another discussion about Aeroflot destinations also earlier this year which resulted in keep. Do we have to keep doing this? Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last ten AFDs on Airline destination lists have all closed as delete/merge (see here), and roughly 2/3rd of the Airline destination lists that were ever created (~300 out of ~470) have now been deleted. Well-attended AFDs included this one deleting 120 airline destination articles and this one deleting 82 airline destination articles. Two of these deletion discussions were also endorsed on review.

Moreover discussions about what lists to include on Airport articles are pretty irrelevant to an article that is not an Airport article, and a no-consensus close cannot be used to assert a consensus in favour of any particular outcome. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article includes the statement: "Frankfurt is currently a terminated destination for the airline". This appears to be based on a comparison of primary sources (a listing of destinations in the 1996 World Airline Directory - a sort of Yellow Pages for airlines, and a listing of destinations in a drop-down menu on the Cubana website from 2010). How is this kind of synthesis of primary sources to reach a conclusion that neither states not original research?

The reality is, this isn't a defensible statement, because there's a number of different explanations as to why an airline might have had a destination listed in a directory in 1996 but not be offering that service in 2010. These include an error in the original listing, the Frankfurt service being planned but never actually started, and the Frankfurt service still operating in 2010 but not being listed by mistake. Moreover since no date is given for the list, the implication is that this service is still not being offered now, when in reality we only know that it wasn't being offered in 2010 - and in reality Cubana are selling flights from Frankfurt on their website right now.

This kind of original research/verifiability problem is present throughout this corpus of articles. Indeed, the article under discussion is largely made up of services listed as "terminated" based on identically-flawed reasoning. FOARP (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cubana de Aviación#Destinations as an alternative to deletion – Whilst I mostly concur with the nom's assessment, it would make sense for someone searching Cubana's list of destinations to be redirected to the aforementioned section of the airlines' article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]