Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Eurocypria Airlines 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurocypria Airlines destinations[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and the 2018 RFC that decided that exhaustive lists of airline destinations are not appropriate content for Wikipedia.

This is a listing of the destinations of a (now defunct) airline. It is not clear to me why this article should be treated any differently to, say, one listing exhaustively the locations of the outlets of Benihana, Roy Rogers, Tower Records, or Little Chef might be. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or Expedia.com, it is an encyclopaedia that summarises what reliable independent sources say on the subject - an exhaustive list of all the products/services of a commercial enterprise is the opposite of a summary.

Even if the WP:NOT/RFC issues could be removed somehow, this article would still fail WP:CORP as it is sourced only to the company's own website. WP:CORP applies as this article is related entirely to the activities of a commercial enterprise. Nothing that would pass the audience requirements of WP:CORP was found in my WP:BEFORE search. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Cyprus. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough reasoning laid out by FOARP. --Tserton (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines. If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP and Rosbif73: So let's withdraw the other two AfDs and add the other airline destination lists to this AfD? That's what the WP:MULTIAFD guideline sets out for multi-page deletions anyway. By the sounds of it, it'll be a fairly lengthy list, but I'd be happy to help. --Tserton (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73 and Tserton: - This is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'd prefer to work on these individually to avoid the inevitable "Keep, it's a trainwreck!" !votes. Maybe after another few small batches of these articles has gone through I'd try a bundled nomination, but not yet. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF as a procedural keep on the basis of WP:MULTIAFD. I hope I'm mischaracterising your intent, but it sounds awfully like "let's start with the obscure ones that almost nobody is watching, then use these deletions as precedent for the rest". If you really want to start with just a few articles to test the waters, wouldn't it be better to go with something more representative, such as British Airways or American Airlines? Also, for information, have you nominated any other airline destination lists for deletion recently? Have any been deleted? Rosbif73 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to distract from your question to FOARP, but just to comment - the RfC is precedent enough, given that it was specifically on this very topic. It would probably have been sufficient basis for speedy deletes when it was held in 2018, and might even still be now since the consensus hasn't changed. It might have been tactically marginally better to start with a major airline, but in light of the existing consensus to not have these articles (and of course in general always) I wouldn't be so quick to set aside the assumption of FOARP's good faith. --Tserton (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that speedy deletion of the articles was attempted in 2018. An AN discussion was then held saying effectively that the RFC decision stood but that deletion had to be done through AFD. FOARP (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me in turn assume good faith in that your intent here is not to set up a Catch-22 where these articles can neither be nominated for deletion individually because they have to be bundled, nor bundled for deletion because “it’s a train-wreck!”. I should point out, though, that bundling is not mandatory, and should not be done where you think people will likely raise a train-wreck objection. I think that is likely in this case.

Personally, I think this article and the other two nominated today is very representative of the airline destination lists corpus as a whole. If you want to see the other airline destination list pages that have been nominated for deletion you can see them by clicking on the aviation or lists DELSORT links above. One (Adria Airlines) has already been closed as delete, but there are two others from previous days still running (I’m on my mobile so I can’t get their exact names). FOARP (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is no obligation to bundle them, but there must be literally hundreds out there and I can't see any good reason to do them one by one. Admittedly there will probably be more opposition for some of the major airlines' lists, and the age of the RfC will no doubt have to be addressed at some point (WP:CCC). How about a compromise, bundling large groups of minor and/or defunct airlines together, then addressing the majors individually or in smaller groups? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosbif73 - Honestly, having handled a few of these bundled deletions in the past (the Turkish Mahalle articles, the Iranian "village" articles), I really think it's best to run through a reasonable number of them one-by-one before I even think about bundling. Bundled nominations tend to guarantee drama, and WP:TRAINWRECK accusations are easily made. It also helps bring out the arguments that are likely to be made in a wider discussion so that you can see what they're going to be ahead of any wider discussion. Reviewing the three earlier bundled deletion attempts (2006, 2007, 2015) diving straight in to a bundled deletion appears to have been a mistake. Smaller bundled discussions may be the next step after some more of these discussions have been closed but not yet. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2018 AN discussion linked above the view was expressed by a number of editors that there should not be a mass AFD of all of these articles. The close of that AN discussion stated that they should be dealt with “in orderly fashion”. It also clearly stated that AFD is the only forum for such discussions.

I’m open to that consensus having changed and dealing with all of these airline destination articles in one go. However, it cannot be the case that deletion en masse is not allowed AND deletion individually/in small groups is not allowed. That just sets up a Catch-22 where articles that manifestly fail our policies and guidelines (particularly the 2018 RFC, WP:NOT, and WP:CORP) remain on here permanently. FOARP (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:23, 21 May 2023 (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.