List of Hewa Bora Airways destinations: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close .  Hence here I am.  This article is exactly the kind of article the 2018 RFC decided against - it is an exhaustive listing of every route that was served by a particularly airline.  It is a clear failure of WP:NOT , since it is a complete listing of all the services offered by a commercial enterprise, making it a directory or catalogue listing.  We could also talk about WP:NOTTRAVEL since this is essentially a travel-guide.  Even if the RFC and NOT issues were somehow set to one side, the article would still have to pass WP:CORP .  Since no sources at all are cited in the article, it does not.  WP:BEFORE is not mandatory, especially where the failure of the article is of WP:NOT , but I carried out a search anyway and did not find anything that would meet the requirements of WP:CORP about the routes that Hewa Bora flew.  It has been asked why a bundled deletion of these airline destination lists is not made.  WP:BUNDLE is only appropriate where bundling is likely to go unchallenged.  I note that there have been at least three bundled deletions proposed of airline destination articles ( 2006 , 2007 , 2015 ) and in every instance bundling of the articles was challenged.  Whilst these discussions have been superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL , I think it highly likely that another bundled deletion would just result in the same challenges being made, though am happy to bundle in future if it becomes clearer that bundling will not be challenged.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Democratic Republic of the Congo .  FOARP ( talk ) 13:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator and per WP:IINFO .  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Hopefully someone will vote here, but if they don't, I guess I should say that I don't agree that this article should be ineligible for soft-deletion.  This is because: The article was only nominated for deletion once, in 2015, as part of a mass-nomination of 400 articles.  The merits of this particular article were not discussed in that AFD.  The 2015 AFD was eight years ago.  There is a policy consensus at VPP in 2018 against this article.  This should at least count as an additional vote against it if one is missing.  There have been a series of AFDs closed recently (see here for a list) in which articles basically the same as this one have been deleted, and the consensus of the 2018 VPP discussion has been re-affirmed in those discussions.  FOARP ( talk ) 10:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per arguments above and that I have made at the other discussions.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 16:41, 26 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.

Discussion outcome: delete