Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

List of largest airlines in Oceania (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)

This is a straight-forward failure of WP:V, WP:LISTN, WP:NCORP, and WP:NOR.

Particular, no source is cited for this ranking. Instead editors have created their own ranking by comparing the publicly-announced passengers-carried of a selection of airlines. This is an unverified, original-research WP:SYNTH of non-independent sources. The original-research nature of this article is emphasised by the way it stopped being updated in 2018 when the editors who created it lost interest. Quantas stopped publishing their data in 2019 according to their website so this may also be a reason.

In order for this to pass the relevant guidelines (WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP) we would need multiple independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to this ranking. I wasn’t even able to find one independent, reliable source that actually discusses the ranking for Oceania. At most it is possible to source a listing for specific routes (e.g., Australia-America). It is entirely possible, given how aviation in Oceania is dominated by flights into/out of the continent, that the “largest airline in Oceania” is not even based there or on this list.

Reviewing the 2007 AFD, the arguments used there (mostly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:USEFUL) simply don’t apply now

Nothing here is reliably and independently sourced so there is no scope for merging. As for redirects, there isn’t a single clear one so I favour deletion, but I could see Largest airlines in the world, Aviation in Australia, and List of the busiest airports in Australia as at least reasonable ones. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 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, France, Oceania, Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of a larger collections Category:Lists of largest airlines which all are defined from Lists of largest airlines, it may be Oceania is as the smallest segment looks less stable to get a precedent to delete all. This should be an all or none you cant a set of set articles that are not complete. Gnangarra 14:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFF. We don’t have to keep articles just because they’re part of a set. Nor do we have to delete other articles just because one of a set fails our policies and guidelines. FOARP (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being out of date does not mean there is original research, that’s a complete non-sequitur. Putting things in order on one statistic is just a basic WP:CALC used in all sorts of articles, not original research. This is a valid subarticle of Largest airlines in the world that is parallel to the other continent-based lists. This is a perfectly appropriate list for navigation of airlines based in the region, and there do not have to be additional sources that are Oceania-specific in order to organize the set of articles this way. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point about it being out of date is that no-one outside WP is producing this data, so when editors stopped doing OR we stopped being able to update it. Sub-articles must also be notable per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Selecting the list-items and producing your own ranking is WP:SYNTH and hence OR. FOARP (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. It’s not. It may be outdated, incomplete, or poorly done, but it’s not synthesis or original research. No one is making any subjective decision to select any airlines or not. It’s not synthesis to say Qantas carried more passengers than Air New Zealand. Or sure, remove the ranking column if you think there’s another airline that should be included in between these, but I see no basis for any improper synthesis or deletion. The beauty of Wikipedia lists like this is that we’re able to compile statistics from multiple sources, we aren’t limited to precise lists that merely duplicate what a single entity makes in a specific way already. — Reywas92^Talk 03:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – needs work but a useful list. Agree with Reywas92 and Gnangarra‘s points above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]