Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LAM Mozambique 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. ✗plicit 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LAM Mozambique Airlines destinations

[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, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is supposed to be a list of place LAM flew to in February 2021, but instead is largely a list of places that LAM wasn't flying to in February 2021, as is indicated by the majority of them being listed as "terminated". Without these the list would be quite short and redundant given the coverage already on the LAM Mozambique Airlines page. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly to.

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. The listing also includes original research since services are claimed to have been terminated or still operated in February 2021 without any source explicitly saying so, based on comparison of decades-old timetables.

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 sourced entirely to the company website, press releases, old LAM timetables, the Aeroroutes.com blog, and old copies of Flight International's world airline directory. The website and other company publications are clearly not independent of the topic, nor is the directory since it was written entirely using material from the airline. Additionally the directory simply listed the details of every airline regardless of notability making it an indiscriminate source, the equivalent of a Yellow Pages listing. Finally Flight International is trade-press coverage and the listing of destinations provided in it is not significant coverage since it is a single-paragraph bare listing without commentary. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Africa. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. The current destinations are just the airline's route map in list form. In addition I see no need to record every single city this airline has ever flown to. By contrast the parent article does a nice job of discussing the evolution of LAM's route network over the decades.
Regarding original research, I'm not entirely sure it's present. I think the idea is if a destination appears in an old route map but not in the current one, that means it was terminated. So technically you would have to cite both route maps and expect the reader to infer what you mean. I guess that would be considered OR, but for me the larger issue is that a list of every destination in history is a case of IINFO. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think without question taking two primary sources and then inferring something they don't actually say (and for which there are other explanations) is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Actually this goes for every item on the list, not just the "terminated" ones, since they are all based on a primary source having said that a service was on offer years ago, and assuming it was still on offer in August 2024. I agree that WP:IINFO/WP:NOTDB is probably a bigger issue. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per my comments at other AfDs WP:NOT doesn't actually apply here, but it's not well sourced enough for me to make a good argument for keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 19 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.