Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation

WP:DELAV

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:

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.
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

Purge page cache

watch

Aviation Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD)[edit]

List of Ukraine International Airlines destinations[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Ukraine. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyprus Airways (1947–2015) destinations[edit]

(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of DAT destinations[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Denmark. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martinair Cargo destinations[edit]

(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:

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Netherlands. 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. Reywas92^Talk 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]

Delete. Per nom. It would be good to have the current destinations in the parent article.Reywas92, if you can pull this off from reliable and current sources: just copy and paste what is left of the destinations. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Air Charter destinations[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Bulgaria. FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, numerous WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking a previous nomination involving this page:

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and Malta. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 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]

Delete indiscriminate list of services possibly provided at some point in time, per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:07, 16 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations[edit]

(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:

The Vietnam Airlines website
A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
The Vietnam Airlines website
An industry-press article based on a company press-release
A local news story based on a company press-release
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
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
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
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
Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
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.
Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Vietnam. FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:13, 17 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. Reywas92^Talk 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 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92^Talk 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]

2024 Myanmar Air Force Shaanxi Y-8 crash[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. From what I've been able to find, the majority of sources are primary with a lack of/no reliable secondary sources. The event does not have in-depth nor continued coverage coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Myanmar, and Mizoram. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which of the references is primary? And why would an incident in 2024 already have continued coverage? gidonb (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the references used in the article or published news articles outside the article?

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." I've only been able to find news coverage dating from when the accident happened. Coverage of the accident only lasted 1-3 days. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References are in the articles and sources are out there. My question was for the references. The continued coverage requirement is important, however, it takes time until media get back to an event. This one happened in 2024. gidonb (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accident, pretty much all references are primary without any analysis of the event.

Per WP:NTEMP: "_{While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article.}" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Nearly six months after the event, nobody's much interested, and there's no discernable reason why they should be. Also, military crashes have a higher bar to cross for notability than civilian ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VanGrunsven RV-2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, no mention in RS besides passing ones. Is not individually notable beyond its series. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the EAA video cited in the article has the interviewer ask the designer specifically about this design, and they discuss it in more than passing. The video from Van's about the restoration of another design which uses part of this design is also more than a passing reference, but since it's from the company themselves, it's not truly independent of the subject. In a case like this, where we have a series of 13 out of 14 closely-related articles that are all patently notable, and 1 out of 14 that's iffy, I think it makes sense to WP:IAR if we don't have the magic three sources.

[edit] Oh, and procedural note: this AfD and the nom's approach to a good faith mistake by the article's newbie creator[16] is one of the worst examples of biting I can recall seeing. And it appears to have worked; he hasn't edited since, nor responded to an attempt to reach out to him. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When did U5-tagging an unsourced autobiography that promotes the author's resume become "biting"? Are we so scared of scaring off newbies that we allow whatever promotion and spam they insert? Has the blame shifted from spammers and COIS to the new page patrollers and admins who work the speedy deletion process? Air on White (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to read over this section of the behavioural guideline and reflect a little. With behavioural guidelines, it's less about what you did, and how you did it. I completely believe that you acted in 100% good faith here, but the outcome was still a bad one for the newbie and for the project. I've done patrolling in the past, and I know what a grind it can be (and how valuable it is to the encyclopedia). But if sustaining that fight is taking its toll and leading to actions like this, it might be time for a rest for a while and work on writing about something that brings you joy and recharges you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you concretely explain what I did wrong? How is this case is different from normal? Are you yourself aware of your patronizing, judgmental tone? Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very happy to dive into this in detail with you; but I'll take it to your talk page. I apologise if you don't like my tone; it's not my intention to come across that way. That said, there's a profound difference between two highly experienced editors communicating in a forum like this vs how a highly experienced editor with tools permissions treated a well-meaning newbie. I would additionally suggest however, that both your responses here confirm my impression that time on the front line might be taking a toll. More shortly in a different place.--Rlandmann (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to promote anything. I am content with my employment (i.e. not looking to get into anything else) and my company makes business-to-business products (i.e. it's not like a Wikipedia reader is going to decide to buy a cargo jet after reading that I work on them). I thought that writing about myself would (A) establish that I'm knowledgeable about my field (including awareness about good public sources to get relevant details from) and (B) show that I'm trying to be honest and to do things in good faith since I'm tying my actions on Wikipedia to my real name and career, not an anonymous pseudonym. But, ok, if there is no advantage to being a real expert rather than a random anonymous stranger on the internet, I can create a pseudonymous screen name instead and use that (other than for uploading images, which I do intend to retain ownership of). Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now to the actual argument of the keep post. Interviews do not always contribute to notability. The Van's video most definitely does not count as a source as it is not independent at all - all company videos can be assumed to be promotional sources that do not undergo the rigorous fact-checking of RS. It provides 0 sources toward the "magic three." The only other source is the EAA video. Can you provide the timestamp of the interview where the RV-2 is mentioned? It is also equivalent to a serious, reliable documentary? At best, it is 1 source. No amount of invalid sources adds up to notability—0+0+0+...+0 = 0. This keep case stretches and twists policy—the independence of sources and the threshold of GNG—to shoehorn a topic of supposedly inherited notability into Wikipedia. Air on White (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just verifying my own understanding here: when you opened this AfD and asserted that there were "no mention in RS besides passing ones", you had not actually viewed the sources? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now~~ Comment. This article has only been here a few days. I think it's too early to judge what RS might or might not be out there. By all means tag it as short on RS, but deletion is premature. Having said that, Van's Aircraft's own puff about its planes starts with the RV-3, so seeking sufficient RS to support this article could be a fool's errand. Or maybe merging into Van's Aircraft will prove a good middle way. I'd suggest we revisit this in a month or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] See comment below following relisting, now that some of that time has passed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and I obviously can't claim to understand the rules and the culture thoroughly. If you guys decide that the article should be deleted, then, that's fine, do what you think is best.

FWIW, my rationale for creating the article was the following: Van's Aircraft is far and away the world leader in experimental airplanes, with over 11000 airplanes flying and countless others being built. When people in the aviation world first learn about Van's - or maybe after investigating RV airplanes for a while - the question naturally comes up: If it's so easy to find out about the RV-1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15, then... What about the RV-2, 5, and 11? Now, again, I'm not 100% sure that Wikipedia is the place for (at least a very summarized version of) the answer, but... Firstly: Wikipedia already had an article for the RV-11 (which made it a little further in its construction but was also unfinished). And secondly: Wikipedia has countless articles about concept aircraft that never made it into the air, included in the encyclopedia because they're part of a series where people often wonder about missing numbers (The X-6 and X-54 didn't make it very far at all, and the X-33 and X-57 were cancelled after substantial prototyping and subsystems tests but before completion of the final vehicle), or because the development project was large and/or resulted in relevant technologies or partnerships or R&D later used for other things (National AeroSpace Plane, Boeing 2707, Lockheed L-2000, High Speed Civil Transport, Aerion SBJ and AS2...). So I figured, if all those X planes and supersonic transports that never made it off the drawing board all warrant Wikipedia articles (and the RV-11 apparently does too), then the RV-2 probably does too.

But, again, I'm new here, and if my reasoning goes against how you guys think Wikipedia should be run, then, do whatever you think is best. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability states, under "Projects and studies", that such aircraft "are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project (...) is a significant project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft". It seems to me that the RV-2 and its article meet this criterion. Bernardo.Malfitano (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad to see you back! I was really worried that we might have scared you off.

Note that that guideline is an unofficial one and does not trump the General Notability Guidelines. (It's also ancient and reflects Wikipedia practices from 10-15 years ago, so needs to be brought into line with current practice...) --Rlandmann (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes thus far all favor keep, their arguments call for (reasoned) exceptions to policy/guidelines rather than basing themselves on it, so a relist to allow for further discussion seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order, my "Keep for now" is based on Articles for deletion where it says; "Wikipedia policy encourages editors to use deletion as a "last resort" following attempts to improve an article by conducting additional research." (my bold). I am pointing out above that those attempts need time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I endorse User:Rosguill's summary of the situation. And, after further research and further discussion with the contributor, I'll add that it seems really unlikely that further RS will be forthcoming anytime soon. Based on the sources that we do have, then at worst, this material should be merged elsewhere. However, there's no clear, logical place to do that. In other, similar situations, we merge information about minor aircraft projects (particularly unbuilt or unfinished ones) into the article on a related design. However, in this case, this was a stand-alone design that isn't related to anything else that Richard VanGrunsven designed or built. Which means that his bio is the most obvious destination if we were to do a merge, but would create serious undue weight there. So yes, if we do decide to keep this information in a separate article, it is as an exception, and one based purely on information architecture, not on the Notability of this design per se. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bio. Thank you for your additional research. I don't think your suggested merge to his bio would be unduly undue, as it were. There are several paras about his planes there and the meat of this one is really quite small. Alternatively, since the canopy was used for the VanGrunsven RV-5, it might be merged there, but I agree that is not very satisfactory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [add clear !vote — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Merge (selectively) into Van's Aircraft#RV aircraft series as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a well-developed article. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging everyone who wanted this merged: Rlandmann and Steelpillow. Best, gidonb (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:gidonb -- the problem here is that the RV-2 and RV-11 are not Van's Aircraft designs or products, and should be removed from that list ASAP. (I've left them there for now pending this discussion) Note how they're missing from the timeline graphic immediately below. Creating a similar list of all Richard VanGrunsven's designs in his bio would be one merge that could work and still avoid unduly unbalancing that article. I'd hate to lose the images of the RV-2 and RV-11 now that we have them though, and also don't want to dominate VanGrunsven's bio with a table of all his designs and pictures. If the outcome of this process is merge, maybe we should create a separate list article for all VanGrunsven's designs, with an image of each. I think that would cover all the concerns that have come up in this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as the best way forward, given Rlandmann's input. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]