Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iberia Group 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. ‑Scottywong | express _ 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia Group destinations

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

The article is an unsourced consolidation of pages including the same information, i.e., the destinations served by each of the airlines of the Iberia Group. All the information is already included in each individual article. Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell this is takes the current destinations from Iberia destinations, Air Nostrum destinations and Iberia Express#Destinations. Can I ask what the difference is between this and say AirAsia Group destinations? Sourcing in this case seems surmountable. Fuebaey (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the info is duplicated. Each individual airline has its own destinations article. There's no need to have this one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing, many templates/lists/categories duplicate information. It's whether the Iberia Group is a reasonable search term or whether it falls foul of WP:OVERCAT. If the former, would a merge option be useful? Fuebaey (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the WP:Notability guidelines, as well as that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, or a directory -- for flight schedules and routes.

Comments

@ Fuebaey:

Iberia destinations is a list-class article that is still a travel guide. It has 15 references that include links that show places it "does not go to" (ends service), a poster (not an actual reference) that looks good for reference count, routes it is or is planning on resuming (Iberia returns to South Africa two years later and routes it is adding (IBERIA Adds Shanghai Service from late-June 2016). This list article looks well referenced, with travel guide informational references, or sources that belong (if at all) on the parent article so it could be merged. That is my opinion but past discussions might have resulted in an acceptable Iberia (airline) fork that needs a lot of work and more references.

Air Nostrum destinations is a travel guide list article with one reference. This list should be boldly merged to the parent article.

Iberia Express#Destinations is a section of Iberia Express. If that article is notable then references supporting content (even on where the airline travels) is acceptable, so this is not part of the equation.

AirAsia Group destinations: The B-class AirAsia article is large, and has a destination section. A solution for any added relevant coverage would be trim content to the bones and slide it into the article section, that would still add to article length, exclude or delete the content, or create "summary-style spin-off's or new, linked articles for related material". See: WP:PRODUCT. I did not dig deep into these (more a quick glance) but this appears to be the case. At any rate I would imagine someone would have a better chance finding a snowball in hell than success at AFD on this one. I am not stating it would be impossible, as I was hit with an insurmountable "snowball" clause, and launched one big enough that a tiny flake made it through, just stating I don't see it happening.

- Conclusion: Creating good looking destination travel guide lists, especially when the information is primarily derived from the parent source or article, is still just a well presented travel guide or promotional list. Many (if not all) the travel guide references will just be mirrors of information obtained from the primary source. The solution is to merge the ones where the parent article could use the help (if referenced), keep those that are clear and exceptional forks, and discuss those that are marginal. :There may be arguments that other stuff exists. I would suggest finding the other than primary or primary sourced references, certainly enough to satisfy notability and support a standalone article, then there may be a valid rationale. As for as a destination guide (list) being a "reasonable search term", it certainly would not be searched for any current relevant information, as that can change to fast to be of use. Otr500 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons why I chose not to bring up WP:NOTDIR is that many lists (like "sportsman with x statistics" lists they put up at WP:FL) are like that. Now you could say that I'm making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but there has been prior consensus (see Jan 2007, May 2007 and Oct 2015 discussions) that pages at Category:Lists of airline destinations shouldn't be deleted on that basis. Fuebaey (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff" existing, still means articles (and lists) on Wikipedia that follow policies and guidelines. The entire concept of other stuff existing on Wikipedia, or any "stuff", is dependent on the following of these policies and guidelines. I have seen many projects go rampant, in good faith, creating articles that ultimately started to be deleted.

I AM NOT A FAN (stated many times) of mass deletion efforts, unless there is some clear reasoning, so I would have !voted keep on such a mass attack on articles or categories. I am not alone as it is hard to get mass deletions to gain consensus for a reason. I can see the good faith reasoning, as there are many of these list with problems, but it is misdirected. Articles that have a fork, because of size, is acceptable by consensus. Stub or start articles or even smaller C-class, DO NOT deserve a separate standalone (fork or split) as it is unnecessary and not helpful to the article(s). The parent article to all of theses "destination" lists are the airlines. If an article is small it should have a referenced embedded list. That is the issue: Does an individual "list" deserve standalone status if it would be better presented in the parent (or separate parents) article? Especially if it has severe issues.

"Otherstuff" does not mean that an unreferenced BLP should exist just because there are others. It does not mean that a list should exist in spite of the fact that it would be better presented in the parent article, and it certainly does not mean that a standalone list should exist because other lists exist against clear policies and guidelines like verifiability, because of no references or other severe issues.

Iberia (airline) is large enough to have the referenced standalone Iberia destinations list, but certainly does not need to be copied to a "Iberia Group destinations" list.

Iberia Express has an embedded "destinations" list so does not need an "Iberia Express destinations" list (it doesn't) or to be copied to a "Iberia Group destinations" list.

Air Nostrum is a glorified start-class article being presented as C-class. An embedded list would be better served on that article instead of the standalone Air Nostrum destinations list, and certainly it does not need or deserve duplicated material found in this article.

This article does not serve a purpose because it is duplication of material already found elsewhere. If someone wishes to use "otherstuff" in this instance that just means there is a lot of cleanup needed, with some possible merging, and possibly some deletions, not mass deletions that might take out the good with the bad. Otr500 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going a bit tangential. My comment was that WP:NOTDIR was rejected in prior discussions but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that doesn't mean there is a precedent and that consensus cannot change. The article under discussion here is Iberia Group destinations. Neither myself or the nominator are advocating anything to be done with the other articles. I merely brought up the rest to consider other possible options that could be done to this one as an alternative. Fuebaey (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Iberia Group (whatever that is it appears to be made up) is not an airline so doesnt need a destination article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iberia destinations or Iberia (airline) to preserve history. f e minist 03:48, 23 April 2017 (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.