Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cubana de Aviación destinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cubana de Aviación destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | 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]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is even less of a consensus now than when this discussion was relisted the first time. How do folks think about the possibility of a Merge that was brought up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on precedent as we have plenty of other articles like this for other airlines. Also per SportingFlyer. At the most a merge would be ok but if we’re going to have this information up anyway I see no reason to not have it on a seperate page from the actual airline.
Flyingfishee (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2024 (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.