Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of low-cost airlines


 * 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. ✗ plicit  01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

List of low-cost airlines

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, "low cost" is not objective inclusion criteria. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation,  and Lists. North America1000 03:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Low-cost carriers and subcategories therein. Note that at WP:NOTLIST it states (underline emphasis mine): Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content . However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.
 * Also, list articles full of functional blue-links that meet WP:NOTDUP and are provided for navigational purposes per WP:LISTPURP typically do not need to meet WP:NLIST. North America1000 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC).


 * Keep Shows every sign of notability. + no real reason for its nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The list article links to Low-cost carrier showing this is a real thing, and there is a category for this also. So it is a valid navigational list article.   D r e a m Focus  13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per others and what the hell? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inclusion criteria is subjective.  What constitutes "low cost", "budget", "no-frills", etc. has no clear boundary.  While the general phenomenon may warrant coverage in an article (which is fine, an exact boundary isn't necessary for that), a list delineating low-cost from non-low-cost doesn't.  Moreover, the appeals to NOTDUP are insufficient because this isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic -- the existence of the category itself is probably inappropriate.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed based on Jumpytoo's logical argument Delete Grey-area definition, Wikipedia has no place for determining the status of various airlines. For example, many airlines compete with Ryanair in Europe (e.g. Aer Lingus) and may sometimes, in their financial reports, claim to be moving to a "budget" model but don't appear in this WP:OR list. How does an airline qualify for inclusion in the list? Self-identify? For example, why does the list of airlines in this article for USA differ from the table/list at 4.1 included in the book "Low Cost Carriers in the USA and Canada" (which you'd imagine is a key source)? Is there another source with a different list? No. The answer is WP:OR and for that reason, this article should be deleted.   HighKing++ 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic meets NLIST per HighKings source and that ICAO maintains a list of low cost carriers. I disagree with the IP's argument that WP:DEFINING does not apply, because sources frequently when namedropping budget airlines will describe it as a "low cost" or "budget" airline, two random examples: I also disagree with HighKing's argument because there are objective inclusion criteria, either use the ICAO list and/or when reliable sources describe the airline as a low cost carrier. For his example specifically, every airline that is still active are in both lists, the differences are always either because the airline folded after the book was released or the airline was founded after the source was published. Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given that there is significant coverage of low-cost carriers as a group, this passes WP:NLIST. On top of that, the ICAO list presented by indicates that this is a term that is used even within regulation, so it makes it possible for us to use selection criteria that are resistant to WP:OR. As such, I see no reason to delete the article (or do anything but keep), though the content may need some improvement. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.