Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Africa


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of largest airlines in Africa

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. Russavia 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the list seems to use number of passengers (per year?) to define the largest. To compile a list of existing information isn't original research.MarsRover 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is original research when rankings are made up from working from a rudimentary list, without reputable sources which verify whether these actually are Africa's largest airlines. --Russavia 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please see relevant comments in Articles for deletion/List of largest airlines in Oceania, to which this nomination is related to. A list of statistics, each entry of which is sourced, is not WP:V nor WP:OR. I would have expected Russavia to cite WP:SYN as a better reasoning to assert WP:OR, but even if he does, there is far less grounds for claims of WP:SYN when it comes to relatively undisputable statistical tables. When source A says Airline A flew 1000 passengers in 12 months, and source B says Airline B flew 1500 passengers in the same period, is it original research to say Airline B flew more passengers than Airline A?--Huaiwei 02:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It may not be original research to say A flew more than B, or whatever, but it is original research to compile a list of largest airlines without reliable sources which verify that the list is indeed correct. --Russavia 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a rather sophisticated distinction. Kindly explain the difference between the two. These series of articles lists the largest airlines based on existing verifiable information. The exclusion of non-verifiable information is not to be penalised. Also, the exclusion of any entry simply enforces the fact that this is a work-in-progress article. It dosent turn into Orgainal Research just for being "uniquely incomplete".--Huaiwei 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Actually, it is quite a simple distinction. The only sentence in the article states The is a list of largest airlines in Africa:, therefore the original research is implying that the few companies listed are in fact the largest airlines in Africa. It missed Comair with 3,141,000 and Tunisair with 3,777,189. This shows that editor compiled 'largest' lists are definitely not a good idea, as shown with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_largest_airlines_in_Asia] and it is so easy to completely miss entities, so whilst the individual company figures presented may be 'verifiable', the subject of the article, that being 'largest airlines in....' is absolutely not verifiable, and is original research. --Russavia 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All the individual entries are sourced, and it isn't a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" to rank them.  Also from WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."  I don't see how ranking airlines in size violates the spirit of WP:OR which is essentially an extension of WP:NPOV. --Phirazo 04:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is included as a paragraph in article World's largest airlines which also has paragraphs relating to list articles for each of the other continents/regions of the world. If an article needs improvement, then fix it, not delete it. Nominator's arguments are irrelevant to the goodness of WP Hmains 05:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep For all the reasons listed above. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - because the World's largest airlines article needs (or needed) to be split. This is just the end result. SchmuckyTheCat


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.