This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mauritius. 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|Mauritius|~~~~}} 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 Mauritius. 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.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Africa.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
WP:LISTN and WP:NCORP are failed because none of the sources provided in this article are secondary, reliable, independent (WP:SIRS) sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services offered by Air Mauritius. Instead they are:
PDF copies of time tables published on the airline website.
PDFs of old copies of the Flight International directory, which is industry press (see WP:TRADES) whose information came directly from the airline, and who only provided a bare listing of destinations.
The website of the Corporate Travel Community, which is part of CAPA and is " a network of corporate travel buyers and other personnel who manage their organisation’s travel portfolios".
A FlightGlobal.com article about a press-conference. WP:TRADES, not independent.
The annual report of Air Mauritius, enough said.
A single-paragraph story in Air Journal based entirely on a company announcement, WP:TRADES, not WP:SIGCOV.
A brief Xinhuanet report about the opening of a single route, based entirely on statements from the CEO of Air Mauritius. Not WP:SIGCOV, not independent.
A Reuters story about airlines cancelling flights during COVID. Not SIGCOV of the topic of the routes of this airline.
Routesonline, a corporate blog which is not reliable and independent per our discussion at RSN.
A press-release published in Le Mauricien (they literally just screen-capped the letter from the airline).
I could go on but it would be tiresome for all involved. None of the above sourcing is a WP:SIRS pass.
WP:NOT is failed as this is an exhaustive listing of all of the services offered by a corporations, and as such a WP:NOTCATALOGUE/WP:NOTGUIDE fail.
Common sense is failed because this is predominantly a listing of places this airline does not fly to (of 44 destinations, 31 are listed as "terminated"). Why on earth should we maintain such a list?
Whilst there is text content in this article, this is all already included at the parent article. There is therefore nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terminated destinations are as valid as current ones, or even more so considering the history of any airline. Should the article be deleted I will merge the list into the parent article. I am sick of nonsense deletion nominations--JetstreamerTalk21:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If terminated destinations are important, then why is the coverage of them only in blogs, industry press, press-releases, company statements, and the company website? We don't do exhaustive history research here: we provide a summary of what secondary (not primary) sources have to say about a topic. FOARP (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the prose summary from above the table to Air Mauritius#Destinations. The RfC mentioned above as "WP:DESTNOT" was very specifically about one destination list for a large airline and does not apply to all destination lists, especially not ones as outdated and poorly sourced as this, for which there is ample precedent to delete or merge/redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely disagree with the entire premise of the nomination. Lists don't need to meet NCORP, especially for a defunct corporation. This is also well sourced! Lack of verification can be remedied - there's no suggestion that any of the information here is wrong, just that it does not contain a reference. Lists do not violate NOT per a recent RfC, and these AfDs - by one user who doesn't like them - are trying to be an end-around to this. SportingFlyerT·C11:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated at another similar ongoing AfD where this has also been said. That RfC was specific to the two articles at that discussion. It was not a wide consensus. Just to quote the closing comment: 'This discussion reached a clear consensus that neither of the articles in questions violates WP:NOT.' Emphasis on 'neither of the articles in question'. @Rosbif73 did make this clear in their comment above. 11WB (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the consensus at WP:DESTNOT that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. This is a valid informational list under MOS:LISTPURP and any supposed issues with sourcing are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Oppose a merge on the grounds that this table would not serve readers interests in reading the article Air Mauritius as it is bulky (WP:SIZE) and would take up more space than most of the rest of that article, impeding the reader experience at that article, who are likely more interested in the historical information about the airline. Katzrockso (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That consensus is currently under discussion at a new RfC. No notification was sent out to participants of DESTNOT, so I'm letting you know this way instead. 11WB (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
