Shortcut

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:
Purge page cache watch


Travel and tourism

Aero Fiesta Mexicana

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]

AerianTur-M

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]

Vanshika Parmar

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]

Bayu Indonesia

Bayu Indonesia (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. Examples: [1] [2] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benin Golf Air

Benin Golf Air (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) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elenite

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]

Maurice Mobetie

Maurice Mobetie (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)

The links masquerading as sources contain only fleeting mentions of the subject and with exception of the Hamburger Abendblatt, a local gossip newspaper, are all promotional claims in this article which is little more than a potted CV. BEFORE reveals absolutely nothing else but the standard raft of Instagram and other social media. The article has the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vier Gebroeders Airstrip

Vier Gebroeders Airstrip (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 – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage of the airstrip itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airstrip. Source assessment table below:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No Just "METAR" weather information. No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
Yes ~ Similar to WP:GOOGLEMAPS. No Just a map. No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
Yes ~ WP:SPS: Information cited from official agencies. No Just data and statistics. No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
No Blue Wing operates at the airstrip. Yes No No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
No Gum Air operates at the airstrip. Yes No No significant coverage of the airstrip 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) 14:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply no SIGCOV, and NBUILD refers back to GNG CR (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godo Holo Airstrip

Godo Holo Airstrip (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 – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage of the airstrip itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airstrip. Source assessment table below:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes No WP:SPS No There's no actual coverage of the airstrip itself, only data and statistics. ✘ No
Yes ~ See WP:GOOGLEMAPS No No coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
No Airline operates at the airstrip Yes No No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
No Airline operates at the airstrip Yes No No significant coverage of the airstrip itself. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Only coverage is about an accident that happened at the airstrip. ✘ No
Yes Most likely No WP:SPS No No significant coverage of the airstrip 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) 17:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Airlines

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]

Mahfooz Aviation

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]

The Shepherds Rest

The Shepherds Rest (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)

A local pub, part of the large Greene King chain, that is relatively young (opened in 2000) and doesn't meet WP:NCORP. There are routine listings and pub reviews, but insufficient to establish notability. PROD contested with justification given (see Talk:The Shepherds Rest#Proposed Deletion Objection). Klbrain (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora

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]
  • 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]

Tourist attractions near Portland, Oregon

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). Reywas92Talk 16:10, 10 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. Reywas92Talk 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]

TravelPerk

TravelPerk (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)

Promotinal routine coverage sources only about seed fund raising and similar event-based news. Not meeting NCORP Taking off shortly (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have a conflict of interest as I am affiliated with TravelPerk, but I would like to provide independent sources that may demonstrate notability such as [1], [2], [3]. Nrinlondon25 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Travel_and_tourism
No tags for this post.