Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Mauritius destinations: Difference between revisions

List of Air Mauritius 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:LISTN, WP:NCORP, WP:NOT, and common sense.

WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP are failed because none of the sources provided in this article are secondary, reliable, independent (WP:SIRS) sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services offered by Air Mauritius. Instead they are:

• PDF copies of time tables published on the airline website.
• PDFs of old copies of the Flight International directory, which is industry press (see WP:TRADES) whose information came directly from the airline, and who only provided a bare listing of destinations.
• The CAPA website, an industry organisation which Air Mauritius is a customer/business-partner of. Not independent.
• The website of the Corporate Travel Community, which is part of CAPA and is ” a network of corporate travel buyers and other personnel who manage their organisation’s travel portfolios”.
• A FlightGlobal.com article about a press-conference. WP:TRADES, not independent.
• The annual report of Air Mauritius, enough said.
• A single-paragraph story in Air Journal based entirely on a company announcement, WP:TRADES, not WP:SIGCOV.
• A brief Xinhuanet report about the opening of a single route, based entirely on statements from the CEO of Air Mauritius. Not WP:SIGCOV, not independent.
• A Reuters story about airlines cancelling flights during COVID. Not SIGCOV of the topic of the routes of this airline.
• Routesonline, a corporate blog which is not reliable and independent per our discussion at RSN.
• A Twitter post by JetArena, enough said.
• WP:AEROROUTES
• A press-release published in Le Mauricien (they literally just screen-capped the letter from the airline).

I could go on but it would be tiresome for all involved. None of the above sourcing is a WP:SIRS pass.

WP:NOT is failed as this is an exhaustive listing of all of the services offered by a corporations, and as such a WP:NOTCATALOGUE/WP:NOTGUIDE fail.

Common sense is failed because this is predominantly a listing of places this airline does not fly to (of 44 destinations, 31 are listed as “terminated”). Why on earth should we maintain such a list?

Whilst there is text content in this article, this is all already included at the parent article. There is therefore nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Mauritius. FOARP (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Terminated destinations are as valid as current ones, or even more so considering the history of any airline. Should the article be deleted I will merge the list into the parent article. I am sick of nonsense deletion nominations–Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If terminated destinations are important, then why is the coverage of them only in blogs, industry press, press-releases, company statements, and the company website? We don’t do exhaustive history research here: we provide a summary of what secondary (not primary) sources have to say about a topic. FOARP (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the “clear consensus” at WP:DESTNOT that these articles do not violate WP:NOT. Avgeekamfot (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only the prose summary from above the table to Air Mauritius#Destinations. The RfC mentioned above as “WP:DESTNOT” was very specifically about one destination list for a large airline and does not apply to all destination lists, especially not ones as outdated and poorly sourced as this, for which there is ample precedent to delete or merge/redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I completely disagree with the entire premise of the nomination. Lists don’t need to meet NCORP, especially for a defunct corporation. This is also well sourced! Lack of verification can be remedied – there’s no suggestion that any of the information here is wrong, just that it does not contain a reference. Lists do not violate NOT per a recent RfC, and these AfDs – by one user who doesn’t like them – are trying to be an end-around to this. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Air Mauritius#Destinations as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST – Searches performed in the languages that Mauritius uses did not uncover any significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources of a “list of Air Mauritius destinations” which would establish the list’s notability. Most of the coverage is just primary routine news reporting. The best that I could find was this book that noted that the airline had 27 destinations (as of 2009). In addition, some coverage found also talked more about specific routes operated by Air Mauritius rather than the airline’s network as a whole (the information of which could be added into the airline’s destinations section if merged). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the clear consensus at WP:DESTNOT. The repeated relitigation on these articles is bordering on tendentious. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve participated at another similar ongoing AfD where this has also been said. That RfC was specific to the two articles at that discussion. It was not a wide consensus. Just to quote the closing comment: ‘This discussion reached a clear consensus that neither of the articles in questions violates WP:NOT.‘ Emphasis on ‘neither of the articles in question‘. @Rosbif73 did make this clear in their comment above. 11WB (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NLIST. Paper in which authors polled passengers traveling on routes to South Africa about service quality. This paper contains a map of the routes. Another map is also present in a chapter of this book. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here are the sources identified by Kelob2678, alongside a couple more I found from a WP:DILIGENCE search of Google Books and The Wikipedia Library. My preference as an editor would be to merge to Air Mauritius#Destinations, as WP:NPRODUCT states Avoid splitting the company and its products into separate articles, unless both have so much coverage in reliable secondary sources as to make a single article unwieldy, and I don’t think WP:SIZE is an issue (Air Mauritius is roughly 3000 words, well under the 10000-word split threshold). Having said that, I think it would be reasonable to interpret the primary (SIRS) NCORP criteria as being met by the first four sources listed below (while the Encyclopedia of African Airlines is a tertiary reference, I don’t think the secondary/tertiary distinction is important here). Whereas NPRODUCT falls within the (optional) alternative criteria section of NCORP. So I don’t think there’s a strong case to make a formal recommendation either way.
  • Guttery, Ben R. (1998). “Air Mauritius (1967–)”. Encyclopedia of African Airlines. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. pp. 123–125. ISBN 978-0-7864-0495-7. Describes why Air Mauritius’s network is important (the carrier was established to improve air links with other countries, facilitating tourism), as well as providing a substantial history of how and when this network was developed.
  • Lamy-Giner, Marie-Annick (2011). “Accessibility Challenges Facing Mauritius and La Réunion” (PDF). Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures. 5 (2): 86–105. ISSN 1834-6057. HAL hal-01244117.
  • Seetaram, Neelu (2016). “Mauritius”. In Graham, Anne; Papatheodorou, Andreas; Forsyth, Peter (eds.). Aviation and Tourism: Implications for Leisure Travel. Taylor & Francis. pp. 313–321. ISBN 978-1-317-17676-3.
  • MarketLine Company Profile: Air Mauritius Ltd (Report). 31 October 2019. pp. 1–23. Available to TWL members from EBSCOhost 141334831 (you’ll need to open the HTML version then scroll down to the SWOT analysis section). I can’t quote from this report due to licensing issues, but it notes Air Mauritius’s extensive network and describes its reach, including a detailed listing of direct destinations (dated to 31 March 2019) and an overview of indirect destinations (via airline partners). The report also gives a historical overview of when new destinations were added (1973–2019), which is likely to be helpful for verifying claims made by the article / other sources we would like to cite (e.g. the Encyclopedia of African Airlines).
  • Conlin, Michael V.; Baum, Tom (5 July 1995). Island Tourism: Management Principles and Practice. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-95556-6. Not cited for notability, but rather to provide further context: Air Mauritius has grown successfully as a “niche carrier” totally committed to the development of the island’s tourist traffic. It operates non-stop Europe services and carries 53% of total passenger traffic to the island.; Mauritius is well connected to the outside world [in significant part due to] the development and expansion of international air services by Air Mauritius.
  • Baguant, J.; Lutz, W.; Prinz, C.; Toth, F.L.; Wils, A.B. (2013). Population — Development — Environment: Understanding their Interactions in Mauritius. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-662-03061-5. Not cited for notability, but rather to provide further context: Tourism development in Mauritius is closely linked with international air travel … predominantly controlled by the national carrier Air Mauritius … Most major cities of the world are connected [particularly European cities] … [but] diversification of the route network is necessary … Obtaining landing rights for Air Mauritius in Australia … has been a step in this direction.

Preimage (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources. I believe the relevant policy here is WP:DUE. This table, if added to the parent article, would take a disproportionately large space, and then editors could argue that it should be removed or trimmed. In structuring articles, we should serve the reader. At a time when most readers use mobile devices, it is better to have shorter articles. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 destinations that are actually being served would take up too much space? Once you strip out the WP:OR “terminated” destinations (seriously, if you’re comparing schedules and saying all the services not listed in the later one are now “terminated”, this is what you are doing) that’s what you’re left with. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see WP:OR here. I suppose this can be resolved by replacing “terminated” with something like “As of 2020, the route was not operational”. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]