Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Cathay Dragon destinations/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Cathay Dragon destinations edit

Featured list removal candidates/List of Cathay Dragon destinations/archive1

Notified: Nobody (I really don't know who to notify)

This list is nominated for featured list removal (mainly) because of failing to meet attribute 2 of WP:FLCR. The lead of the list is too short for a featured list (even for a featured list of the same type like List of Braathens destinations). It is also notable that there are some (permanent) dead links in the references which may also indicate its failure to meet attribute 3b of WP:FLCR (although it may not be a main point). San mo sa _Outdia 06:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – the lead is awful and fails to provide sufficient context for the list. I don't know why it was changed so much from how it passed FLC, but this is wildly different and does not meet FL requirements. Notifying Aviator006, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Hong Kong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Looks like the whole lead section was deleted by a single edit back in November 2019. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thank you RunningTiger123 for the notification and I can see that another user has re-updated/replaced the lead. The deadlinks are because the airline has now defuncted and merged to the parent company, Cathay Pacific, perhaps the links should be checked and linked against archives instead. Nevertheless, the list still demonstrates a level of standard a featured list should or aim to be. Aviator006 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 _Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IABot isn't always accurate; sometimes the archived pages don't have the same information as when they were added, and a few lead to completely different pages (compare the URL for source 46 to the archived link as an example). The new IABot links in particular seem to be bad, which makes sense since the Cathay Dragon website doesn't exist now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the permanent dead links can be replaced. Sun8908 _Talk 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brush up per Aviator006 and keep. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if the list needs to be "brushed up", that implies it's not currently in a suitable state for FL status. We shouldn't say "it will probably get better, so we should keep it"; if it's not good now, it should be delisted until it returns to FL quality. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it means its current state is still good for FL but it's better to improve it according to what Aviator006 suggested. I think what I said was clear enough. Please do not distort to make a point. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a defunct airline, the destinations would require as a column date ranges (when Cathay Dragon flew those routes, instead of "notes"), or are we to assume that these were the routes at the end when they merged? But that doesn't make sense since some are listed as "terminated". Either way, Delist until this issue is resolved. The lead could use more information as well (what was/were the first routes, when did they start flying, etc..) Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open a long time, with split opinions on delisting or keeping. Normally that would default to keeping, but in looking through the article I don't feel that the list is FL quality. As others have mentioned, routes are listed as "Terminated" without saying when they stopped, apparently the cargo routes in general were also terminated but it doesn't say when, it doesn't say when any of these routes started, "Charter" is both a column option and a superscript tag, its just assumed readers know when "Seasonal" refers to, and the lead, though now existing, is still anemic and gives insufficient context. There's a lot to be done here, so I'm giving less weight to the keep votes, who beyond voting don't seem to have done much to improve the list in response to issues. I'll leave this open for another week, but if nothing changes I'll delist it. --Pres N 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. --Pres N 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.