Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laudamotion 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laudamotion destinations[edit]

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

List of planned airline destinations. Redirected to main article but was reverted. This is a directory of miscellaneous business information that belongs on the company website, and not in an encyclopedia. GMG ^talk 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly every airline has a destination page so whats the difference here, the page is not a list of 'planned' destinations some of them are already in operation. There is no reason for it to be deleted it is no different to any other destinations page. CBG17 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if those are similarly just a reformatting of content from the company's website, most of which is speculative at this point, then what content can be well sourced and is essential to an understanding of the company should be incorporated into the main articles for those companies. What passes for secondary sources here are things like this which are essentially just window dressing, and are overtly promotional uncritical reprinting of corporate PR, with gems like great news for Austrian consumers and visitors, who can now book low fare flights and benefit from genuine competition and more choice. If we removed everything that doesn't even pretend to be independently sourced, we're left with almost nothing. If we remove everything that isn't speculative (even if it was supported by secondary sources), we'd be left with about a half dozen, and all as a spin-off from an article that has less than 400 words to its name. GMG ^talk 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per community consensus: [1]. Basically there is no compelling reasons for keep in this instance that outweighs the views of the Wikipedia community. Ajf773 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. I thought we had had that discussion, but when I looked all I found was a more generic discussion about transportation articles. GMG ^talk 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That supposed consensus was overturned when it was attempted to be acted upon; see here. I personally have issues with these articles, but it seems to me that the only argument here is that the airline does not yet actually fly. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a lot like "the community doesn't much care for it, but also isn't much for mass deletions". At any rate, even if we were talking about an uncontroversially accepted type of stand alone list (and we certainly aren't given past discussion), it's still general practice that when a list acts as a companion for only one main article, the default is more-or-less that you should need some reason to spin them off. If the only thing we can spin off is a mostly speculative directory based on the official website and thinly veiled advertisements, the correct course of action to my mind is 1) find better sources, 2) incorporate it in the main article as prose if possible, and 3) incorporate it as an embedded list if you can't. GMG ^talk 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the second discussion regarding the bundling of all 444 airline destination articles. In any case the right place is to bring them up to AfD, and in this case this one warrants deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeletevIf this is created by b o r i n g guy CBG17, then delete. In fact in Italian and Portuguese versions of wiki, destination of airports and airlines are not necessary because differ in a daily basis. --92.76.27.83 (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general I support articles on airline destinations, but this particular one is too speculative and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 18 April 2018 (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.