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. ✗plicit 23:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libyan 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)

Nominated for deletion per the 2018 RFC on airline destination lists as modified by the subsequent AN discussion which recommended nominating them for deletion in orderly fashion.

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTCATALOGUE. This is a complete and exhaustive listing of all the services offered by a business, albeit one wholly owned by the Libyan government, at a specific point in time (apparently some point in 2011).

Also fails WP:CORP. The only sources cited here are routesonline.com, which is not independent as it is an organisation that works with the airline industry creating forums and media coverage for it, and a 404 link to the Shabablibya.org website which, being inaccessible, is impossible to assess (though based on archived versions of the site appears to have been the site of the Libyan Youth political movement and thus not an RS for this topic). A WP:BEFORE search uncovered nothing that could fix this. The best I could find was this short Libyan Herald article quoting the Libyan state news agency, who are in turn quoting Libyan Airlines. This is run-of-the-mill coverage that falls short of significant coverage of the destinations specifically (they are only mentioned in two sentences) and anyway the coverage is not independent since ultimately the source is Libyan Airlines themselves. Passing WP:CORP means having reliable, independent sources that meet the audience and independence requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Libya. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent article is plenty of reliable sources (added by myself actually) that could support most of the entries in this article. The search for them claiming WP:BEFORE was not conducted properly.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jetstreamer, can you tell us which of those sources meets the requirements of WP:CORP (especially WP:ORGIND and WP:AUD) for this list of destinations specifically? That article does not have any data about destinations (the section on destination is blank and just includes a link to this page) so it is not clear what you are talking about. Additionally, can you say how WP:NOT does not apply here?

All I can tell you is that articles in the Tripoli Herald quoting Libyan Airlines officials, 404 links, non-sigcov catalogue listings, and industry publications listing run-of-the-mill (and typically WP:CRYSTALBALL) announcements about the purchase of aircraft only served to cast doubt on the sourcing of that article, and do nothing to rescue this one. And to re-iterate, both the WP:NOT and the WP:CORP issues need to be addressed together: you need to explain why the services of this particular company deserve a dedicated article listing all of them. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World Airlines Guide published once a year in Flight International are third-party, reputable and reliable sources that support terminated destinations.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The World Airlines Guide is a catalogue with short, one-paragraph entries for each airline in the world, not significant coverage. Catalogue entries/trivial coverage don't support notability per WP:ORGDEPTH, nor does being listed in a catalogue that attempts to list every single company in a particular field. Moreover to pass WP:CORP the coverage needs to not be simply industry press per WP:ORGIND/WP:AUD, and Flight International is clearly industry press. And even with that, you still have to get past WP:NOT and explain why we should have an article dedicated to exhaustively listing the services of a commercial organisation. FOARP (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain what kind of references fits better for airline-related articles than airline-industry material.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A high-quality and independent source, that is not industry press, and that reaches a regional/national/international general (not narrow-interest or local) audience, providing significant coverage of the subject (in this case listing the destinations of Libyan Airlines and discussing them in detail). Sources that tend to provide that kind of coverage are high-quality broadsheet newspapers like the New York Times, national broadcasters like the BBC etc., though of course these also include brief coverage that does not amount to SIGCOV so simply being mentioned on them is not enough.

And even if this is found, that still only addresses the WP:CORP part of the problems with this article. The WP:NOT part is far more fundamental. FOARP (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. The issue is not whether there may be references, the issue is that this is an indiscriminate and ephemeral and trivial. Also, the RFC noted above appears to still apply here. --Jayron 32 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jayron. The WP:EPHEMERAL point is a good one - this is presented as a list of destinations as of 2011. An accurate title of the article would be List of Libyan Airlines destinations as of 2011, but there's nothing particularly notable about the destinations served in that year as the destinations served by any airline change from year to year all the time and it is in fact impossible to lock in a definitive listing of airline destinations. In similar circumstances (for example, military ORBATs) we tend not to keep articles about, for example, the ORBAT of the British army in a particular year unless that year was particularly notable and that was evidenced in reliable sources (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle). FOARP (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following your reasoning, why not deleting all the airlines' destinations' articles?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and if airline destinations change week-to-week it makes no sense to try to to support what amounts to a news-feed of airline destination updates, but that's what would happen if anyone tried to keep these articles up-to-date. These articles, in my humble opinion, do not belong in an encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to support your view, but let me tell you that you will have strong opposition in deleting the entire set of airline's destinations articles. For the time being I still think this article should not be deleted.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and Jayron32. The keep !vote above is less convincing than WP:IINFO. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering people would just go to an airline's website when they wish to find out what destinations can an airline serve, I'd say this list is pretty redundant. Unlike, for example, list of past mayoral elections in a city or list of important historical event in a date, this type of list doesn't really add much value compare to its source. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:21, 22 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.