This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Travel and tourism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Travel and tourism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Travel and tourism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Travel and tourism/archive

Brianne Bartolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page for a non-notable "influencer" who fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sources are limited to rowing stats pages ([1], [2], [3], [4]), her own social media posts ([5], [6]), related promotional cruft ([7], [8], [9]) and an IMDb page that shows she had a single role as an extra. A BEFORE search turns up a Daily Mail story about how she was once delayed at an airport, which is (a) unreliable, (b) churnalism and (c) nothing that makes anybody notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, Italy, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find a few versions in non-RS about this person getting stuck in the airport. Nothing in .ca websites, sourcing now in the article is social media and other non-RS. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She has less than 30k followers per the article on tik tok, I don't even think that's a large amount, even for an "influencer". This article feels like PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Women, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, reliable sourcing, or encyclopedic value. It appears to be a vanity page or a case of self-promotion, making it a strong candidate for deletion. --LusikSnusik (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't find any additional sources --Spacepine (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valério Souza-Neto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources other than the academic journal articles he wrote. The articles he wrote are not considered independent sources. Any independent sources I find about this individual, but not by this individual, are WP:SELFPUBLISHED or otherwise unreliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They seem to be doing fine for a PhD student [10], but they are obviously a long, long way off any of the WP:NPROF criteria (also noting that the piece in Nature mentioned in the article is a letter to the editor, not a journal article). I didn't find any secondary coverage that could suggest a possible WP:GNG pass. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Travel and tourism, Behavioural science, Economics, Psychology, Australia, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not remotely close to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article and nothing in his Google Scholar profile even hint at academic notability nor any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suspect this is just a very obvious case of self promotion, without any actual merit behind. —Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, the subject does not have enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources. Much of the coverage available is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. He also fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Niamey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 3609 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS and not notable. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 14:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 14:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Drafity per WP:TOOSOON Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and New Jersey. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incident and should be in Wikipedia. Sure, bird strikes do happen but most don’t cause an engine fire. Grffffff (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously it wasn’t “notable” when I made it but news articles are popping up about it. Grffffff (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Routine aviation incident with no injuries. Bird strikes are not unusual. Johndavies837 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. Airplanes suffer occasional bird strikes, sky is blue and water is wet. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:TOOSOON. Protoeus (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the event is unlikely to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perfect example of WP:NOTNEWS. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as TOOSOON, likely won’t generate sustained coverage. Coresly (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as routine incident with no injuries, deaths or hull loss. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to Newark Liberty International Airport#Accidents and incidents as WP:ATD; accident is mentioned there. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Newark Liberty International Airport#Accidents and incidents per @EditorGirlAL07 seeing as it clearly isn't notable. Norbillian (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete run-of-the-mill incident. Indeed, it is so run-of-the-mill that it won't remain on the airport page for long, so not worth creating a future RfD candidate. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Think this is a clear case of WP:SNOW. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 11:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. ChessEric 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hills Ski Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. There are limited sources. Mangoflies (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Covered extensively in Ski (magazine) and Skiing (magazine). [11] [12] [13]. Also covered in the Boston Globe: [14] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Helpful Raccoon. The article's topic appears to be covered in other sources, demonstrating its notability. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep : Some articles are useful that shows notability. Needs more. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Aero Fiesta Mexicana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Mexico. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -more of a procedural vote because Im the article creator. But Im working at finding more sources. Jeanette, babe, join me at my fiesta Martin (aqui?) 20:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The source that you recently added doesn't meet WP:SIRS in establishing the airline's notability as there's no significant coverage of the airline itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – More detailed source assessment:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Aviación Mexicana en Cifras 1993-2015" (PDF). Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 February 2022.			Only mentioned four times as "InterAmérica" in tables. No coverage of the airline itself at all.	✘ No
"Aerolíneas Extintas Mexicanas - Aeronotas ✈️".			Just a short and brief explanation of what the airline was. Part of a list of defunct airlines in Mexico.	✘ No
"Aero Fiesta Mexicana history from Americas, Mexico".		No sources cited for the information. The page of contributors doesn't inspire much confidence.	Barely any coverage of the airline itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - in the absense of coverage of RSes to establish N, List of defunct airlines of Mexico would be a plausible redirect target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AerianTur-M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Iraq, and Moldova. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Moldova in the absense of coverage to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanshika Parmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable entertainer and model. No significant achievements to pass Notability.

Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:ENTERTAINER Zuck28 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Beauty pageants, Fashion, India, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elenite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP; a black sea resort referenced only by a travel website: exclusively promotional. I had placed a PROD, but this was contented on the grounds "I think it's notable as a quasi-populated place". I don't think that a resort should be assessed as a 'populated place', but rather as a business. Unable to find reliable sources discussing this resort; other language versions don't seem to help either. Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft keep. As per my removal of the PROD. This is a holiday resort area of around 10 hotels, all or most of which are owned by a single company. Its status is indeed debatable: in 2005 it was listed by the Bulgarian government as a "settlement of national importance", but this was revoked by a court. The area does have the status of a "climatic sea resort of local importance", but under the name Kuzluka (which is unknown to the wider public, unlike the name Elenite) and bundled in together with the nearby Sveti Vlas. The resort has been mentioned in The Sun and Daily Mail. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says:

  Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:

  Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

  Sources

  1. Shishkova, Elena; Ivanova, Maria; Dimova, Rosit︠s︡a (1998). Destination, Bulgaria. Burgas: Selekta. p. 106. ISBN 978-954-8371-490. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Elenite Holiday Village which opened in 1985. It is roughly divided into two colonies of two-storey villas clustered around amenities one would normally expect to find in a classy holiday centre. Situated between a mountain massif and the sea shore around a large bay the villas face a beautiful stretch of clean sandy beach and the sparkling blue sea. Like the other holiday villages Elenite has sprung up to meet the growing demand for holidays of more privacy and comfort. This is exactly what the self-contained villas offer. Each comprises two large and well-appointed sea-facing studios, with a terrace on the ground floor and a balcony on the first one. The studios have separate entrances and are more or less of the same design. But the villas in zone A unlike those in zone B, have kitchenettes with cooking facilities. The Emona Hotel is perched on a hill in the north-eastern part of the village. Although it is called a hotel, it consists of villa accommodation like the rest of the village. It has its own reception area and other amenities including an attractive restaurant and a day bar. A new hotel in the northern part has just opened and another one, much larger, is being built in the south- ern part. The two zones of villas share a reception located in the Service Centre which comprises restaurants with indoor and outdoor dining, conference halls, bars, a gym, etc. The speciality restaurant The Fishing Net (Talyana) in the centre of the village tempts tourists with fish dishes. The Old Oak Tavern (Stariyat Dub) is attractively designed and offers a varied selection of wines and beers. For those who prefer preparing their own meals Elenite has a well-stocked supermarket in the shopping centre. Elenite is superbly equipped for sports enthusiasts. It has a sea-water pool for adults and another one for children, a sauna, three tennis courts, a gym."

  2. "Bulgaria". Sofia Press Agency. 1986. p. 28. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.

     The article notes: "Elenite Tired of the tall concrete towers called hotels, of the queues outside lifts, of the crowded beaches and bars, all considered to be the 'comforts of big holiday resorts all over the world, the modern tourist started dreaming of Crusoe's island ... at least for the limited duration of his holiday. But how could he get this? Specialists saw the answer in building holiday villages located amidst exotic scenery. "Why did you choose Elenite for your holiday? " I asked Mr and Mrs Kvarken, a young Finnish couple whom I met on the beach. "We were looking for peace and quiet, and found it here, in addition to rare, exotic surrounding. We feel quite at home." The formula "less people, more peace", in the felicitous combination of a picturesque setting and original architecture, this is the Elenite holiday village in a nutshell. It is situated 15 km away from the old town of Nessebur, just where the oak-clad slopes of the Balkan Range descend gently towards the Black Sea. The village boasts fine conditions for holidaymakers—the beach is to the south, sheltered by the mountains to the north, in addition to the pleasant meadows cut by the rocky bed of the river Kozloushka. After interest was expressed by foreign tourist firms, the Bulgarian Association for Tourism and Recreation signed an agreement with the Finnish and French firms Matkarengas and Tourisme et Travail to build a holiday village accommodating 2,000 to the east of the river. It was built jointly by Bulgarian and Finnish construction workers, and welcomed its first visitors in 1985. The village is a far cry from the traditional resorts consisting of Sunlight is equally caressing at the beach and in fro of the bungalo Though there are no sharks special pools have been built for the naughty children where they can swim to their heart's content while mum and dad are having the time of their life in the sea."

  3. Dinchev, Evgeniĭ (2001). A Guide to Bulgaria. Sofia: Alexander Tour. pp. 303, 313. ISBN 978-954-9942-18-7. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Elenite is a resort situated east of Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) at the beginning of an eight-kilometre long no through road. It is 50 km north of Bourgas and 442 km east of Sofia. The nearest village is Vlas. In the past it was given the name of a monastery destroyed by the Turks. The resort complex consists of one-family bungalows and villas surrounded by lush green vegetation. The whole complex is designed as a park and offers deluxe holidays. This small separate settlement has its own private beach, several luxurious restaurants, sports facilities and equipment for water sports, tennis-court. ... One can get to Elenite by minibus from Slunchev Bryag or by taxi, but most frequently holiday-makers come here in their own cars. velop and practice all water sports using the services of coaches, facilities and equipment, horse riding with coaches, water slides, a policlinic, and several big shopping centres for food, clothes and souvenirs. There is an amphitheatre with more than 1000 seats. Accommodation: The most famous are Kuban Hotel, Bourgas Hotel and Diamond Hotel. The hotels Delta, Amphora, Zephyr, and Esperanto in the Black Sea Complex that is part of the resort. The two camping sites — Emona and Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) cover a large area and therefore the sites there are practically unlimited. There are also bungalows in the camps, and these can only be reserved in advance."

  4. Bousfield, Jonathan; Richardson, Dan (1999). Bulgaria: The Rough Guide. London: Rough Guides. p. 352. ISBN 1-85828-422-8. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.

     THe book notes: "Buses continue northwards to the Elenite Holiday Village, 6km further up the coast, a predominantly package destination divided into two villa colonies sharing restaurants, bars and discos. It's a well-run, well-looked after resort with a good beach, good sporting facilities, and childcare provision in a central kindergarten, although it can seem rather isolated if you’re after more than just a beach holiday. A central reception desk (#0554/82423, fax 85147) allocates rooms, although costs are high for independent travellers, with prices of around $70 per person per day in the high season — meals, daytime drinks and entertainment are all included, though. The villas themselves come with cable TV, fridge and kitchenette (although the choice of food in the local store is limited, making the idea of self-catering unappealing)."

  5. Tanner, Adam; Watson, Ian; Schrag, Zachary; Kaplan, Andrew (1995) [1987]. Frommer's Budget Travel Guide: Eastern Europe on $30 a Day (5 ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 0-02860092-4. ISSN 1044-7792. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Northeast of Sunny Beach at the end of a dead-end road is the resort of Elenite, a favorite of Western Europeans on the coast for comfortable facilities and a peaceful setting. Unlike the mass of hotels across the Bulgarian coast, Elenite is an imaginative modern complex built by Finns and opened in 1985. Villas with two to four rooms spread out on a hill overlooking the seaside account for most of the lodgings here; there’s also a conventional hotel with 46 rooms. Villa rooms are decorated with terra-cotta tiles and blond-wood furniture, and have large balconies. Half the villa rooms have small kitchenettes with sinks and fridges but no stoves. ... Facilities: Several food stores, restaurants, and discos operate in the village complex. At the hotel’s private beach you can rent Windsurfers and umbrellas. There’s also a gym, swimming pool, sauna, and tennis court. A variety of excursions can be booked from the office in the main lobby, such as an all-day excursion ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elenite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly have no real clue how to assess this one - Cunard's sources are all travel guides, which I don't think necessarily count towards significant coverage and certainly don't towards WP:NCORP. It's also not clear as to whether it's a village under WP:NGEO or a collection of businesses under WP:NCORP. What I do know is the article does not currently pass WP:GNG, since we can't assume the travel guides are secondary or independent (#2 might be the best, but it's potentially promotional.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete wikipedia is not a travel guide and this isnt even obviously the name of the location. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Kazakhstan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to SCAT Airlines. Djflem (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Googling "авиакомпания sunday" did seem to produce some results about the subject in google(+news), mostly with .kz or .ru domains. I'm quite unfamiliar with the media landscape of those two countries. Someone who speaks Kazakh and/or Russian would be helpful here to parse out if any of the sources meet WP:SIRS. Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the sources are from ticketing/booking agencies (hence they don't establish notability) and the news articles don't contain any significant coverage of the airline itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahfooz Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage + (WP:ORGDEPTH) of the airline itself and only contained passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I haven’t been able to find any coverage on this either. It is mentioned in places but it is not big enough to be notable. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG also didn't find any significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 13:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of the Gambia in the absense of sources to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting? Subject is not mentioned at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to keep and revert to this diff. Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:

  Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.

  As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:

  Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.

  I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep and revert to this diff per the significant coverage found by HyperAccelerated below. Thank you for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the Alberto.pereto (talk · contribs) who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to this diff. I don't think the travel application is notable, but the project management software has been the subject of several studies: see here, here, and here. It's not a lot, but I do believe that collectively this establishes that this meets WP: GNG, albeit barely. I think we should revert procedurally, because we can disambiguate pages rather than hijack them, but since this AfD is open, I do worry that reverting now might confuse other people who want to participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources aren't really studying Plandora, they're using it as a testcase for the actual tools they're studying. I can't extract any significant coverage from these sources that can be used in the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still counts as WP: SIGCOV. The threshold is "more than a trivial mention". These papers give software quality metrics about the code of Plandora, which is more than a trivial mention. You might find the content of these sources uninteresting, but the question we're here to discuss is whether significant coverage exists, and IMO the answer is clearly yes. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Significant coverage should address the topic directly and in detail. These sources only indirectly cover Plandora, since the coverage focuses on evaluation of their experimental tools rather than evaluation of Plandora. In the first two sources, the coverage of Plandora is nothing more than raw data, which is definitely not significant. The third source contains more mentions, but it still isn't coverage of Plandora itself, it's coverage of whether the authors' SQL translation mechanism works on an example database. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of these experimental tools produce metrics about Plandora. That is significant coverage, because these metrics give detail beyond a trivial mention. The papers are primarily about new tools, but significant coverage does not necessitate that the subject be the main topic. I also disagree that any of these papers even present "raw data"; that argument might apply if the papers consisted of large copy-pastes of Plandora source code. What is happening is that the authors are describing their methodology in detail and then describing the application of that method to analyze Plandora's codebase. It does not matter whether that analysis is automated or manual -- the presence of this analysis alone establishes significant coverage. In any case, thanks for reading the sources, but I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, even though we disagree. Thanks for the discussion! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've looked at the three papers linked above, it looks like only the first one has real sigcov (about five paragraphs describing Plandora in the Usage Examples section). The other two papers only use Plandora to test various other things. The second paper only gives some statistics, it is unclear to me whether these are their experimental data or actually innate to Plandora. The third paper describes in great detail what the researchers did to Plandora but not what Plandora is or does. In my opinion, the latter two papers don't count towards the GNG. The last revision of the article before the hijacking doesn't have any good sources either, so I land on the delete side here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The usage section in the first paper doesn't even describe Plandora; it describes the authors' code analysis tool and briefly mentions the Plandora source code as an example input. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist attractions near Portland, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by me with "WP:NOTTRAVEL, no sources. Many of these are several hours away from Portland, so if you want to keep this, turn it into a general Oregon tourism page rather than a ridiculous "near Portland, Oregon" day trip travel guide." Prod2 from Bearian with "That's what WikiVoyage is for." Liz deprodded with "Removing PROD tag, I'll see if there are sources". Yes, obviously we could find sources that the Timberline Lodge offers skiing and is 62 miles from Portland, but perhaps I didn't need to note that since filling this with citations would not fix the fundamental problems with this page that would require a full TNT under a different name even under my suggestion to make it a better subarticle of Oregon#Tourism and entertainment or Tourism in Portland, Oregon (even as two items are in Washington). Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no other Wikipedia articles about tourist attractions near (a subjective word) a city, but numerous lists of tourist attractions by populated place. So, just move and rescope the page to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as an extension of Tourism in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are zero items here that are in Portland so a rescope would be deleting everything and starting from zero. You are welcome to create a new page listing Portland attractions should a subarticle to that be needed, but that's irrelevant to this article that can be deleted whether you do that or not. Reywas92^Talk 17:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the article's prose links to Tourism in Portland, Oregon and includes two Portland-specific categories, I was just thinking of a way to preserve the article history. I would be fine with a rescope and rebuild; it would be very quick and easy to do. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Clearly redundant to Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and the Wikivoyage listings. Even with improvements to comply with NOTGUIDE, I don't see why this can't be folded into the Tourism article as a simple table of attractions by visitation numbers (at most). SounderBruce 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, but it's up to the closing admin to decide what to merge selectivity into Tourism in Portland, Oregon, and a redirect to that article or WikiVoyage. If Liz or anyone else finds reliable sources for this larger topic, then that would make me change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. I don't think any "list of tourist attractions" could possibly pass an AfD here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I just spot checked five cities from around the world in the list of tourist attractions and I don't think any of them qualify to be on Wikipedia. I think a "most visited attractions" might be okay, but they're all essentially just indiscriminate lists of things. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon as per AnotherBeliever. Article needs a considerable amount of rework to make it appear a lot less like a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, if you rename it that, not a single word could be kept because there are zero items in the list that are in Portland. There is literally nothing of use in this article to fit that title, and there is no need to keep this page's history to support a Portland-specific list. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Took me a whopping 2 minutes to add 25 PDX sites to the list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the list should be restricted to in Portland only, not outside of Portland (and especially not 100 miles away). Ajf773 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ajf773  Done The list is specific to Portland. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A tourist attraction 459 km away??? I'm trying to imagine what this list would look like for Brussels or Paris or any city in more densely populated regions... Nothing to merge, if a list of tourist attractions in Portland is deemed a noteworthy subject and fit for enwiki then it should be started from scratch. Fram (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of tourist attractions in Portland, Oregon, since User:Another Believer has improved the page so it's well-sourced and restricted to Portland. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus that the page as it was before AfD was not worth keeping, but do we keep the reworked list? I'm tempted to close procedurally, as this is now a new topic, but I'm hoping that previous participants will weigh in on the reworked version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Tourism in Portland, Oregon#Attractions has been added during this AFD discussion as a side-effect of it anyway, it would seem that a separate article for this is hardly needed. But this now seems to be a direct analogue to, say, the Tourism in Rome and List of tourist attractions in Rome pair.

  Wikipedia isn't a tour guide, so we don't say how many dollars one should expect to pay to stay in the hotels, or recommend nightlife spots to check out, or provide routes to follow. But there's a difference between than and a list of article-worthy things that (verifiably) are tourist attractions, which we now seem to have; with a sane definition of "in" to boot.

  That terrible list with the things "near Portland" that were half a megametre away, and telling readers that they were "top-rated", "impressive", and "spectacular", has gone. That crosses off some of the rationales above.

  Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thoroughly dislike "rescue attempts" where the contents of the article are completely changed, and it should be at a different title. That's not an AfD rescue, that's writing a completely different article at the wrong title for the wrong reasons. Like I said above, "Nothing to merge, if a list of tourist attractions in Portland is deemed a noteworthy subject and fit for enwiki then it should be started from scratch." Fram (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this should now just be merged into that section of the tourism article. I agree with Fram, and since it’s just a bullet-point list and the main page isn’t very long, I don’t even think it needs a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 16:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, having a list of notable Portland attractions seems appropriate and consistent with many other cities. The list could easily be expanded with many other sites and I plan to work on this. I had previously proposed the move and rescope above, without casting an actual vote, so here's my keep for the Portland list. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Vanamonde93 noted, the article has changed radically since this AfD was opened, and we also now have the newly created section Tourism_in_Portland,_Oregon#Attractions to consider as a merge or redirect target. Relisting for more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. I agree with the Nom's WP:NOTTRAVEL assertion, so having more than one standalone articles on this topic is clearly overkill.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read WP:NOTTRAVEL and do not see how the current list (which is different than the nominated version) is in violation of any rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]