Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 November 1: Difference between revisions

List of largest airlines in Oceania (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus in this discussion was not assessed based on our PAGs but instead on a majority vote. Specifically the keep !votes in this discussion were 1) WP:OSE, 2) WP:INHERIT, 3) WP:ITSUSEFUL, 4) WP:OSE, 5) Arguing that a page that patently isn’t a nav-page is a nav-page, 6) WP:PERX, 7) WP:OSE again. These !votes should have been down-weighted in any close. Request reopening of the discussion or overturning to no-consensus.

Let me also say I am not impressed by a fellow admin both not providing any rationale for their close and refusing to discuss their closes on their talk page: if you’re not going to do one, you need to at least do the other, doing neither is not within the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT because it means taking action without any explanation at all. It also means you need to literally bring a discussion to DELREV to get an explanation of what the close was based on. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This is a difficult Deletion Review for at least three reasons. First, as the appellant says, many of the votes were poorly reasoned. Second, as the appellant notes, the close does not appear to have been reasoned. The closer does not explain his reasoning, and will not discuss this close on their user talk page because he does not discuss closes on his user talk page. There is no stated requirement for the XFD closer to discuss their close, as opposed to a requirement for a Requested Move closer, but it is still helpful either for the closer to discuss the close or for the closer to explain the close in a closing statement. Third, however, overturning the close to Delete would be a blatant supervote, and overturning the close to No Consensus would leave the result unchanged, only to rebuke the closer. There won’t be a result that satisfies everybody. Sometimes the situation is less than satisfying.
• Vacate the close and Reclose, which is unlikely to change the result. The appellant could have known that they were unlikely to change the result by this appeal, but they will probably get a closing statement that addresses the difficulties and explains why no one is entirely happy, while still leaving no one entirely happy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow early renomination. A few hours after closing the AfD, Stifle opened his Talk page to questions about his closures. Hopefully, this will resolve FOARP’s accusation re: ADMINACCT (which I brought up here yesterday). As for the close itself, I agree with FOARP that almost all Keeps should have been down-weighted, if not outright discarded. But that still leaves us with a couple of valid Keeps that address the WP:SURMOUNTABLE aspects of the nomination, versus the nom and two deletion supporters, leaving us with no consensus. Therefore, in lieu of a pointless overturn, we can simply treat this as a N/C, and allow early nomination. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate closure and allow for reclose from another admin. This was very much not the correct AfD to omit a rationale in – it was not an obvious keep, as most of the Keep !votes seemed to be OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, and multiple closes of this type are highly troubling. I myself would probably have closed it as a no consensus due to the weak keep arguments yet lack of appetite for deletion. It’s good that Stifle allowed talk page discussion of the closes, but a rationale is also expected unless the decision is blatantly uncontroversial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Poor AfD nomination. “ This is a straight-forward failure …” is patently false in hindsight due to the participants not agreeing. NLIST is not relevant because it is covered by WP:CLS as all entries are bluelinks. Verification is provided by the linked articles, same as is accepted for inclusion in a category and a navigation template.
• Do not allow early renomination. It is a stable 18 year old article, and if it is to be deleted, a much more concise and persuasive AfD deletion rationale is needed.
  User:Stifle Should be chastised for overly terse closes. The closing statement should be understandable by relatively new editors. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Largely per SmokeyJoe. Stifle’s declining to engage in a detailed closing statement with an AfD that should have been closed as keep the first time is not the greatest, but nor is it cause to question the close or allow early renomination. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. is right there in LISTN. WP:CORP doesn’t remotely apply, as this is not about any particular organization, but rather a list of them. FOARP, as both AfD initiator and DRV appellant, has some clear ideas about the suitability of such lists, but provided such a shotgun nomination with two obviously inapplicable arguments that the one argument worth actually debating–V/NOR: is this list assembled/ranked inappropriately from self-published sources?–got lost in the shuffle. No early renom needed, but I’d suggest that all seven lists of largest airlines in [region] be included in a mass nomination next time, because I don’t see any arguments that are unique to this one region’s list. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that NCORP, literally the guide for companies, doesn’t apply to company stats, is a straight-up logic-fail. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I respectfully suggest you stop digging. WP:NNC applies: The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. CORP is an SNG for organizations, but a list of organizations is not part of it: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services (including lists thereof), is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. As an administrator you should either know better already, or at least have been around long enough to know that when I tell you you’re wrong on a matter of deletion policy, you probably ought to go back and actually read the relevant pages. Do you acknowledge that your interpretation of CORP is unsupported with respect to this AfD? Jclemens (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I care barely hear you from the bottom of you own pit. The idea that you can simply end-run around NCORP by making whatever WP:PROMO article it is you want to write a list is a total non-starter. As is the idea that stand-alone lists don’t need to have notability (see WP:LISTN), which obviously applies here since this is clearly not a NAV page. I don’t know, perhaps things have changed since you desysopped? FOARP (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PROMO has nothing to do with this list, and I can’t really tell from your reply whether you think it does or if that’s just a misplaced hypothetical argument. CORP doesn’t apply to articles, list or otherwise, covering more than one organization, as this list does. You’re allowed to think it should but to the extent you can’t read and understand that it currently does not… that’s worse. I have no idea what all is going on in your life, Wikipedia or otherwise, right now but you’re apparently moving from being wrong–happens to everyone every once in a while–to a worse place. Don’t. Don’t let whatever it is keep you from accepting policy isn’t what you thought it was or wanted it to be, and just moving on and learning from it. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) The review request is in itself an example of WP:ATAATA. Concerns with respect to WP:SYNTH were addressed by invoking WP:SURMOUNTABLE. WP:NLIST itself clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as “Lists of X of Y”) , in this case X is “largest airlines” and Y is “Oceania”. There was an appeal made to WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but this is an editing guideline which doesn’t prescribe how to resolve no present consensus for how to assess the notability. A possible way to resolve this could be to appeal to other articles, which was done in this discussion and achieved a consensus of the participants. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – I think we need to contemplate how this page would be used for navigation. Who is going to be looking for a self-selecting group of airlines for a continent? How is this different or better for navigation than the relevant categories by country/region? In the absence of a rationale and sources showing notability of the group per WP:NLIST there needs to be a really strong reason for thinking it is valuable for navigation. JMWt (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not an SME, but when I go to Google News, there appears to be plenty of discussion about largest airlines–by multiple separate criteria. I’m sure some might be press releases or churnalism, but that’s not particularly important because this isn’t the AfD–this is the DRV that’s assessing whether the original close was objectively reasonable. The Google News output (that I see; I know that search will vary over time and location) passes a sniff test as valid, and since this is one of a list of lists, the topic is indeed “largest airlines” split geographically for presumably valid purposes. Jclemens (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok but you’ve searched for the largest airlines in the world. As far as I understand this AfD was about the largest in Oceania.

  Fair enough if there’s a global list page split by continent, that’s a different discussion.

  The fact is that we can sort all information on Wikipedia into infinite navigation lists. Many of those are not useful or needed.

  And if we are not going to present RS in the normal way to show notability of the actual topic of the page, then there needs to be a strong explanation and justification of why it is editorially desirable. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I need to write an essay on the lack of 1:1 correspondence between pages and topics, since this keeps coming up. Since this list is part of a WP:list of lists (see the slightly different essay WP:Lists of lists) that’s globally comprehensive, but split regionally by size, the topic is “largest airlines” and “of oceania” is for sub navigation like “: B” is in List of Marvel Comics characters: B. The nominator should have been aware of this and highlighted it, but that doesn’t appear to have happened. That doesn’t change what the list is. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How used for navigation? It is used for readers in their travel plans.

  These “useful” navigation pages do not fit nicely in the model of an encyclopedia, but they survive AfD, and survive as sections in articles. They don’t fit the Wikipedia model in that they are current-specific, and they serve a practical purpose for readers more than a scholarly information purpose. But they are popular with both readers and editors.

  Similar things can be found at Changi Airport#Airlines and destinations and List of bus routes in London. All can be argued as supporting corporations.

  We don’t need to deal with this at DRV. AfD is the usual forum. An RfC might be needed, if it is felt that travel corporation navigation information sections should be stripped from articles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Listen to yourself. How is it the job of an encyclopaedia to have pages in mainspace to help travellers by listing the largest airlines in Oceania. This is literally an argument to reject at AfD. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s not my argument. It’s what I see that gets argued.

  It’s useful for navigation. What is the purpose of that navigation?

  To make it encyclopedic, I think it should cover the history of airlines in Oceania. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since one of the arguments presented in the AFD was that this is a NAV page, it is relevant to the DELREV discussion to assess whether it really was one. In my view, since it patently isn’t a NAV page, that argument shouldn’t have been weighted. FOARP (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I see it, WP:NAVPAGE isn’t even a thing. The argument was that the article in question satisfies complex and cross-categorization lists (such as “Lists of X of Y”). Do you dispute that this characterization can be applied to the article? Kelob2678 (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, because this is not a Nav page or a cross-categorisation. It is a ranking.

  But this was already rebutted in the AFD when it was pointed out that, if Nav/Cross-catting is needed, List of airlines of Oceania already exists. DELREV isn’t for repeating such points.FOARP (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see nothing in policy that specifies that “X” can only stand for “airlines” and not “largest airlines”. For such a thing to exist, it would need to be determined via consensus. The purpose of the DRV is to assess whether the closer accurately determined that consensus among the participants. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FOARP, why was “redirect to List of airlines of Oceania“ not mentioned? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that’s another !vote that shouldn’t be counted at AfD nor at this DRV. If course anyone can say anything is generally useful. The fact is that there is no actual case-use offered as to why this list is important as a navigation page.

  I say that there is no defendable reason why a traveller would want to know the largest airlines in Oceania, and even if someone somewhere wanted that trivia, there are other places to get it. JMWt (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse outcome but not closure. Based on the arguments presented in the AfD there were only two outcomes possible here, keep or no consensus, and either would have been within the closers’ discretion. However there not being a single obviously correct outcome a closing statement was required to explain why they chose keep over nc (or vice versa). Many of the comments in this discussion are irrelevant to the DRV as this is not AFD round 2, which is very disappointing to see, especially from such experienced editors. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don’t think I agree with the outcome but the closing admin couldn’t have possibly closed this any other way without being here accused of a supervote and being firmly castigated for that. There is only so far you can go with depreciating fundamentally stupid and non-policy based votes. Oh andarguments that NCORP apply to a list don’t wash with me either. You guys need a strong RFC consensus if you want any chance of deleting this class of articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain how CORP would apply, using its own wording to explain, please? Looking at it, I absolutely cannot see that it does, but I’m willing to be persuaded I’m wrong. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there’s absolutely no other way to close this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]