Gol Transportes Aéreos destinations : Also fails the 2018 RFC on whether these articles were appropriate content for Wikipedia .   EDIT: 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 .  Even if the above-described issues were overcome somehow (and I don't think they can be) this is still an article falling within the remit of WP:CORP since it is entirely about a commercial enterprise.  However, the sources in the article are: Gol's own website.  Not independent.  Aeroin.net, which is a borderline blog (see their about page ) and at absolute best still fails WP:AUD as it's specialist media.  Voepass's website.  Not independent.  Panrotas.com, which lacks any information that would allow you to assess their reliability ( see their blank "about" page ) and appears to be a blog.  Even if it weren't, it still fails WP:AUD .  aeronauticapy.com, which appears to be another potential blog/specialist media, especially as their "about" page says they use amateur authors .  My WP:BEFORE search found nothing that would fix this, just WP:RUNOFTHEMILL press-releases and announcements about services opening/closing.  Notably numerous flights listed here are not even provided by this airline.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation , Lists ,  and Brazil .  FOARP ( talk ) 14:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Delete (but bundle henceforth): I fail to see why this particular airline destination list (or the other two listed in RfD today) is any more or less notable and encyclopedic than any of the numerous other airline destination lists that still exist despite that 2018 RfC, including many for defunct airlines.  If the intention is really to delete all airline destination lists, then let's do it in a single RfD.  Rosbif73 ( talk ) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:OTHERSTUFF .  FOARP ( talk ) 19:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per FOARP, and especially per the RfC outcome.  -- Tserton ( talk ) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Keep : whereas Gol and Voepass websites are not independent, Panrotas, Aeroin, and Aeronauticapy are.  They are not blogs but airline news websites, widely used for indepndent airline news in Brazil and in Paraguay.  Their information is more precise and in depth if compared with mainstream media when dealing with airline related subjects.  There has been major changes in Gol services due to the end of the operation agreeement with Voepass.  Changes will be updated as soon as possible.  ( Brunoptsem ( talk ) 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ) [ reply ] There are significant reasons to doubt whether these are reliable sources which I mention in the nomination and which you have not rebutted, but even if they are reliable and independent, how do these sites pass WP:CORP ?  Additionally, you have not mentioned the WP:NOT issues with this article which by themselves are sufficient grounds for deletion - just how exactly is an exhaustive listing of all products/services of a commercial enterprise at a particular date encyclopaedic content?  What about the 2018 RFC?  FOARP ( talk ) 07:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question The nominator's statement (and the rebuttal above) says that the article (and the other airline destinations articles they have nominated) should be deleted because they violate WP:NOT , WP:NOTTRAVEL , and WP:NOTCATALOGUE .   Since NOTTRAVEL and NOTCATALOGUE are subsets of NOT, is the nominator saying that a different section of that policy applies?    The way that item #2 (Travel guides) of the "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" section of NOT seems to be a stretch that a list of destinations is being used as a travel guide, since flight numbers, schedules, fares, or booking information is not being included.    And I really don't know which part of NOTCATALOG is being applied here.   Can this be clarified?  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 16:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To be honest I think all these references to WP:NOT miss the point.  There's an established consensus (based on the RfC on this precise topic ) that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles that only list airline destinations.  As with anything on Wikipedia, there can be exceptions, but then the burden is on those wanting to keep a given airline destinations list to argue why we should disregard the consensus in this case – and not on those proposing its deletion.  (Or try to change the consensus, which would likely involve another RfC.)  Tserton ( talk ) 18:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you seen the other 2018 RFC that was launched in the immediate aftermath that overwhelmingly concluded that WP:NOTDIR (another synonym for WP:NOTCATALOG ) should not include a statement that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia?   A critical reading of that second RFC could raise questions about how accurate the finding that the first RFC established that there is a clear consensus to remove all these articles.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That motion failed on the specific (lack of) any wording that was provided for the amendment.  The close did not note any contradiction of the original RFC (nor did the AN discussion).  The discussion focused mainly on lists of railway stations, which is hardly the same as a list of services provided by a single company.  FOARP ( talk ) 06:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  Neither the purpose nor the outcome of the discussion was to reconsider the freshly established consensus.  The proposal was simply to elevate the consensus into codified policy, and that's what was rejected.  But that doesn't invalidate the RfC, nor does a (necessarily subjective) critical reading of it.  Tserton ( talk ) 06:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi RecycledPixels , thanks for your questions.  WP:NOTTRAVEL applies because this is essentially a travel guide (it shows where you can travel with this company).  WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies particularly because this is a listing of "...products and services..." (i.e., a business directory).  These are just two of the WP:NOT headings that this article falls under - there are others (e.g., simple listings without contextual information, advertising).  As Tserton pointed out, there is an RFC on this exact topic, the consensus of which remains standing (the only addition to which from a later AN discussion is that deletion of these articles has to be done in orderly fashion via AFD), that this kind of article is not appropriate content for Wikipedia.  FOARP ( talk ) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So if I read this article and discover that Gol Transportes Aéreos flies to Buenos Aires and to Córdoba, Argentina, I can use that information to plan my trip?   Of course not.   NOTTRAVEL refers to trivial information like telephone numbers and street addresses of specific notable features, like how to get to the Eiffel Tower from the Louvre, or what the best hotel in the area is.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 21:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, you mean you can't use the information on this page to plan a trip?  Because I think you can - it tells you directly how to get from Buenos Aires to Cordoba: fly Gol Transportes Aéreos!  I would also like to know what your thoughts are on the business directory/catalogue nature of this article, as WP:NOTTRAVEL was not the only WP:NOT failure of this article?  FOARP ( talk ) 09:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question 2 .   Sorry to throw in more threads here, but I also have a question about the nomination statement that this stand-alone list needs to be able to survive WP:CORP .    Wouldn't WP:NLIST (subsection of WP:N ) be a more appropriate notability guideline, since these lists are spin-off articles about destinations of the airline, rather than about the company itself, which has already presumably established its notability?   And NLIST would be an exceptionally low hurdle to cross, since it seems to only require "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."  So reliable independent sources that list the destinations of any airlines seems to establish notability of "List of Destination of X Airlines" types of articles.    Or maybe I'm getting that wrong.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 00:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi RP, it is exactly because these are spin-offs of WP:CORP articles that WP:CORP should apply to them also.  They are entirely about the activities of a business, so the same issues of self-promotion/run-of-the-mill coverage apply.  This applies on top of, not instead of, WP:LISTN .  The alternative would be allowing destination-lists that aren’t just not notable on their own grounds, but even lists for airlines that aren’t notable under WP:CORP , and even articles with no references at all beyond perhaps the website of the company.  FOARP ( talk ) 06:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS - if there were any further doubt on WP:CORP applying here, the very first sentence of WP:CORP is "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service (my emphasis).  This page is manifestly dedicated solely to the air transport service provided by Gol Transportes Aéreos, a commercial organisation, and hence falls within the scope of WP:CORP .  FOARP ( talk ) 08:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , per WP:NCORP , WP:NOTTRAVEL , and WP:NOTDATABASE .  We are here to provide encyclopedic coverage of this airline; this doesn't include an exhaustive list, that lacks explanations referenced to independent sources, of the destinations they serve.  BilledMammal ( talk ) 07:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Since there are simultanoeus RfDs involving different lists of airline destinations I propose to center the discussion in a single page. -- Jetstreamer Talk 21:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per the nominator.  Nythar ( 💬 - 🍀 ) 23:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  This kind of information belongs in an airline's website, not in Wikipedia.  Tutwakhamoe ( talk ) 02:24, 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.

Discussion outcome: delete