This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. 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:
Edit this page 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} 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.
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 Business. 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:
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company ever without any attempt to summarise. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to a full list of all the destinations that Air Corsica has ever served and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.
WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is Aeroroutes, an industry-press blog run by an enthusiast that re-posts company schedule data"sourced from OAG, GDS and individual airline’s website", the other of which is an article from TradeArabia News Service based on a company press-release. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic. In fact the data on this page is largely unsourced but I assume obtained from Air Corsica's website, which is realistically the only real source for this information. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of all the services offered by a company on a random date of no significance. This makes it a straight-forward failure of WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and WP:IINFO since there's no significance at all to the services offered by Germania in July 2018 and flights are listed even if they weren't major routes.
WP:NCORP is failed because there only two sources, one of which is the company website, the other of which is an article from Der Spiegel that does not cover the topic of which destinations Germania served. There is no evidence here at all that sourcing that could meet WP:ORGIND covers this topic and realistically the now-defunct company could be the only source of information for a listing of all the flights served by it in July 2018.
Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is largely a listing of where this airline does not regularly fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated" or "seasonal". What little encyclopaedic content there may be here is already summarised at the parent article.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. Either the information is taken directly from the company website, or (as in the ATO.ru and om1.ru sources) they are based on company press-releases. Links to Euronews, the BBC, and New York Times are included but these do not mention the airline at all - instead they are used to support the WP:OR conclusion that various NordStar flights are terminated.
There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.
Finally this fails WP:V because whilst this is supposedly a listing of destinations served as of February 2021, none of the sources are from that date - they are all years before or years after it. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is a listing of where this airline does not fly to. As is stated in the second line "all flights are terminated". Even if it weren't, UIA is a charter airline, so when it was flying it would have gone anywhere you would have paid them to fly to. In as much as this page has any encyclopaedic content at all, it is already described at the main page about the airline so this is a duplication.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or reports of press-releases, or aggregators like Routesonline that re-post brief company statements. None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ukraine International Airlines for the time being Per WP:CRYSTAL to retain the page history (which meets N/GNG as far as source counts) until the war ends and it (or a future forerunner) flies again, but also, why the nom didn't choose to add a simple 'cities served before 22 February 2022' disclaimer to the article rather than pursuing wholesale deletion is also confusing. AfD is a last-resort venue and we have another example where the talk page is all but tumbleweeds with no discussion (and the main page since 2021) before it was posted here. Nate•(chatter)01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I also think this fails under WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and that a list of destinations for an airline that will fly literally anywhere you pay them to fly is pointless. WP:GNG is not the relevant standard because this is an article entirely about the services of a company and so WP:NCORP applies, but even if it were WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, of which there zero cited here - everything is either garbage sources like airlineroutes.com, the company website, or reportage based entirely on a press-release from the company. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and duplicating content that, to the extent that it is encyclopaedic, is already in the main article about the airline.
Taking the last of these first, the main article already gives a summary of the destinations it served. A complete and exhaustive listing is not needed.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline. FlightRadar24 simply relays airline-provided information (as the page states: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers"). There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyprus Airways - there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone page, but where the airline flew is indeed encyclopedic information. The WP:NOTs cited here really twist the purpose - none of the prongs under WP:NOTCATALOG apply here. WP:NCORP doesn't apply here because it's not an article about a corporation. The nomination also fails to understand what "indiscriminate" means - this is a very discriminate list. However the sourcing isn't there for a stand-alone page, so we can't keep the information at its current location. SportingFlyerT·C09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is a very discriminate list" - where was any discrimination applied at all here? In what way is this not cover by ""Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services"?WP:NCORP literally states in its very first line that "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service".
I don't understand this combative attitude when you straight up admit that this is yet another airline destination list page that shouldn't exist. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup when you could just say that it's not properly sourced enough for a stand-alone article. And a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate - there is a finite number of entries for a related group of items. SportingFlyerT·C09:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a list of every destination served on the last operating day of an airline is clearly discriminate" - this isn't a list of every destination served on the last operating day? This includes destinations that clearly weren't being served on that day since they are "seasonal"? The list is anyway explicitly of destinations the airline might have flown to in November 2014 some months before it folded?
WP:NOT has something like 30 headings and I've mentioned two here and given the reasons for why they are mentioned, so I don't think "throwing every single WP:NOT into the AfD soup" is fair.
If you list every entry in a list regardless of relevance, or whether they were even being flown to at the time in question (were "seasonal" destinations being served in November?) then I don't see where discrimination is being applied. Encyclopaedias are supposed to summarise, not be complete listings of trivia. FOARP (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be their final scheduled timetable. That's discriminate encyclopedic information as it provides a scope of where the airline flew to before it folded, which is indeed relevant information about airlines. SportingFlyerT·C11:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how taking the content of a document like this and transposing it on to Wikipedia is discriminate. This schedule was any way just a future plan - one they did not actually fulfil - and so excluded per WP:CRYSTAL. FOARP (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination requires making choices about what to include and what not to include. This is literally taking every service a company ever offered and including it in a list. To be discriminate, only the main services of a company need be included - the classic "this airline flies to X countries" covers it. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense is failed because this is a cargo airline that operates charter flights and as such they will fly whereever you are willing to pay them enough to fly to.
WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations are listed even if the airline no longer flies there - and so excluded under WP:IINFO.
WP:NCORP is failed because the only sources provided in this article come directly from the airline - either the company website or Airline Routes Maps (an agent) or AeroRoutes (a blog/industry press re-posting brief company statements). None of these are significant coverage even if they were independent. There is no evidence here at all that this is a notable topic, with significant coverage in reliable, 3rd-party, independent sources that meet WP:ORGIND. Even a WP:SPLITLIST has to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and this does not.
A simple statement that DAT operates charter and cargo flights across Europe in the main article is sufficient to cover this, nothing from this article needs to be merged. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT, , WP:NCORP, and what I'm going to call the "you're joking, right?" test.
Let's take the last of those first: this is a cargo airline. Realistically they're going to fly where ever you pay enough money to send things to. Moreover this is overwhelmingly a list of places where this airline does not fly to, since most of the destinations are listed as "terminated". You're joking, right?
The WP:NOT failure is very clear: this is an exhaustive listing of company services and so fails under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It's also a listing of all services this company offered and so is indiscriminate information under WP:IINFO. I could go on with the WP:NOT failures (original research is a big one BTW) but it would be tiresome.
The WP:NCORP failures are also easily described: there is no evidence at all that a listing of all of the services offered by a cargo company as of April 2020 (or ever, actually) is a notable topic that should be covered in an encyclopaedia. None of the sources in the article meet WP:ORGIND because they all are ultimately sourced solely to the company and are coverage in local/industry press. Taking them one-by-one:
The MartinAir website (which actually doesn't have the information it is used to cite...)
Merge Cargo routes get substantially less interest than passenger routes so I don't think this needs a standalone article or one structured with this kind of table, but Martinair#Destinations should still provide information about the airline's services. However per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations, this does not violates NOT: it is a narrow, discriminate topic without inappropriate detail; it is not "A resource for conducting business" and so the straightforward listing is not a forbidden catalogue; the fact that it's poorly sourced does not make it original research – no one did their own unverifiable analysis of anything. Reywas92Talk14:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our coverage does not depend on whether a topic is popular or not. Which services that are sourced in the article do you think should be merged? The vast majority of the services that the airline actually operates are not sourced at all, I don't see any reliably-sourced content here that can be merged that is not already in the main article about the airline.
Is it verifiable that the services were operated and then "Terminated"? No. Linking to this source and saying that the destinations are now "terminated" is pure OR. As is saying that the services are being operated based on a bare link to this page - you can't see that ANY of these services are actually being run based on that page.
Delete. Per nom. It would be good to have the current destinations in the parent article.Reywas92, if you can pull this off from reliable and current sources: just copy and paste what is left of the destinations. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear failure of WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common-sense.
Starting with common-sense first: this is, as the name of the airline clearly states, a charter airline - it will fly to whereever you charter it to fly to so long as you pay enough. The destinations it serves are literally the whole world.
Moving on to WP:NOT, this is clearly an exhaustive list of company services and so is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of all the services that this airline possible offered at some point, which makes it indiscriminate information excluded under WP:IINFO. I could also throw in WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE, and a bunch of other headings that this fails under.
WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by European Air Charter are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. Only one source is cited in the article - the company website - and in reality any other source is going to be industry/local press coverage based on press-reports and company statements.
Even if this is considered a WP:SPLITLIST of the European Air Charter page, it still has to meet the requirements for a stand-alone page per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, which this page manifestly does not. And again, a charter airline does not have fixed destinations so what is the point of this listing anyway? FOARP (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!
WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.
WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.
This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.
This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyerT·C16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.
Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).
WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.
That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:
As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but thisand this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.
I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92Talk13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.
NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.
Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.
The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".
Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.
If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.
Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".
I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:
Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyerT·C11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Going by the Haryana Private Universities Act 2006, an application containing the proposal and the project report with proof of land to establish a university in private sector has to be made by the sponsoring body to the government, along with nonrefundable fee of Rs 10 lakh. An application to set up a private university at Palwal in Faridabad was received on June 16, 2009, from NIILM Education Trust, Faridabad, along with the fee, but the Trust changed the location from Palwal to Kaithal during the presentation of the case on January 4, 2010.
After almost 14 years, the articles claims of notability are not backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources that would be required, nor was I able to find anything meaningful in a Google search that could be added. The article is an orphan and there appear to be no meaningful connections to any other article that would help flesh out a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The South Florida Business Journal is fine, not impressed with the other source in the article. Otherwise, I can only find mentions of his company, hiring employees or the like. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This review appeared in both The Sydney Morning Herald'sGood Weekend magazine and in The Agehere. The review notes: "My worry is that many of the dishes that really set Cambodian cuisine apart aren't represented here. I was hoping to find amok, or nom banh chok, a fragrant fish, coconut and noodle soup. ... But there are vast differences between Cambodia's Kitchen and many of the other nearby quick-service noodle joints. Everything here is made in-house, including the beef balls and fish cakes, things that almost universally come from a packet."
The article provides 144 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "I love discovering cuisines that are under-represented back home and Melbourne offers plenty of that. Cambodia’s Kitchen is the only Cambodian eatery in the central city and when I visited, it was well-patronised by Khmer-speaking customers. The noodle soups are signature here, and I was chuffed with my pick of beef noodle soup – a thick and aromatic broth packed with a very generous serving of slow-cooked succulent chunks of beef shin as well as tendon, tripe, and housemade bouncy beef balls."
The review notes: "Linna and brother Ivanra keep it simple at their Russell St restaurant. Think 44 seats inside a ho-hum dining room, flanked either side with decorative awnings and ornamental wicker lamp shades overhead. A soundtrack of Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift buzzes from the speakers. The menu has photos of each dish and is printed out and slotted into a plastic display folder."
The review provides 167 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If there’s a hot pot you’re yet to try on this list, it’s probably this one. Fairly new to the scene having opened in 2022, Cambodia’s Kitchen is still regarded as a well-kept secret among hot pot lovers and multiculturally adventurous foodies alike. The cosy Russell St restaurant serves authentic classic Cambodian fare, a rich noodle soup (kuyteav) being undisputedly the star of the entire operation and what many street vendors in Phnom Penh typically sell for breakfast."
The review notes: "Here at Cambodia's Kitchen, the Huns' long-held family recipes and use of traditional techniques deliver an accurate reflection of what's being cooked up on the streets of Phnom Penh. Linna's menu draws plenty of inspiration from her own mother's and grandmother's cooking. The signature Cambodian rice noodle soup is the hero offering — a pork broth base loaded with minced and sliced pork, pork liver, and homemade beef balls, fish balls, fish cake and pork loaf."
HereInternet Archive is Concrete Playground's editorial policy. Here is information in the editorial policy that supports its being reliable:
Its editor is Samantha Teague.
"Concrete Playground is Australia's fourth largest independently-owned digital publisher (Nielsen Market Intelligence, July 2018),"
"All facts need to be thoroughly checked by both writers and editors before publishing — we have a duty to our readers to provide them with well-researched, accurate information."
"Direct quotes cannot be altered, and subjects do not have any approval over their quotes."
"Corrections will only be made to a published piece if something is found to be factually incorrect. If a change is made to a published article, a dated amendment will be added to the footer to acknowledge the original piece has been edited."
"All writers must disclose any possible conflict of interest on any piece of work they submit. This must then be disclosed at the footer of the published piece."
"We regularly critique restaurants and bars, and cultural events. These judgements are entirely our own and are only made after experiencing the subject first-hand. All positive and negative feedback must be backed up by reasoning."
"Opinion pieces (including our restaurant and film reviews) are entirely independent and are never produced in partnership with a third party."
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: