Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fabrictramp (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 12 October 2008 (Listing Chevrolet Apollo(2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Points of interest related to Transportation on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions |
Points of interest related to Automobiles on Wikipedia: Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Assessment |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Transportation. 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|Transportation|~~~~}} 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.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Transportation.
- 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.
Purge page cache | watch |
Additional debates categorized as dealing with Transportation related issues may also be listed at Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation).
Transportation
- 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 redirect to Holden Apollo. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chevrolet Apollo
- Chevrolet Apollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article appears to be a hoax, no Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Vectra was ever badged as an Apollo as far as I know. Alkwingle (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove unverifiable info. --Walmwutter (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Holden Apollo has its own page already. A Google search for "Chevrolet Apollo" turned up mostly derivative hits, plus one reference to an online parts dealer listing parts from mid-1970s Buick Apollos, some of which had Chevy engines. Rklear (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Holden Apollo. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Holden Apollo. swaq 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Albert Transit
- St. Albert Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The organization is credible, but it seems like advertising in my opinion. Most of the information are days of transit and locations to bus stations. Beano (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the introduction, but remove the rest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The content does not appear promotional to me. An entire public transport network is a major part of any city's system and easily notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how you think it's advertising but that would be a clean-up task, in my opinion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even the nominator says that the "organization is credible". This article is tagged as a stub, which by definition needs to be expanded and improved. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand why anybody would want to delete this. It is a normal transit article, no different from many, many, others. Peter Horn 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. ffm 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bangkok Monorail
- Bangkok Monorail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The monorail in question is not an actual transport system, but an amusement park ride. See "Bangkok amusement monorail fire. (6/26/02)" at http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/archive071402.html . Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the reason for deletion, the subject fails WP:N, as stated in my comment below. So far, no reliable sources confirming its notability have been established. The article itself seems to be based on this very short mention at http://www.subways.net/thailand/bangkok.htm , which I have trouble accepting as a reliable source (not least because it seemingly fails to recognise that Fashion Island is the shopping mall in question and location of the mostly-indoor amusement park rather than an actual island). Also, per WP:NOT#NEWS, the incident itself may not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, save perhaps mention in Incidents at independent parks. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, news search finds 218 hits for bangkok and monorail; also finds 9 hits for "Fashion Island" and monorail. Also, I believe the nominator is incorrect in his assumptions, since multiple sources claim that the monorail goes between a shopping mall and the amusement part (as also stated in the above article), making it public transport. Arsenikk (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No real reason for deletion given in the nomination, and as noted by Arsenikk, the reason is probably incorrect as well. Even if it was an amusement park ride, Disneyland Monorail would be in the same situation. Coverage of the monorail is already provided in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not having been clearer. The subject of the article fails WP:N; The news in the mentioned link is the only reference I could find about the incident, which has the incident rather than the monorail itself as the primary subject. Almost all search results referring to a Bangkok monorail are misnomers of the BTS Skytrain, an elevated train system, or discussions on future non-existent projects. The nine Google News results are from the Los Angeles Times and concern a different, unrelated subject. I don't know what the "multiple sources" Arsenikk mentioned refers to. The amusement park is in the shopping mall, so it cannot be considered a public transport more than the Disneyland Monorail is. That said, the Disneyland Monorail is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject of this article is not. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect info to the shopping mall - Notable ride. Just needs expanding and altering to avoid implying it is a public transport operating system. I'd suggest mergin it into the shopping mall article The Bald One White cat 11:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Cassini
- Martin Cassini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of this article is a living person and he does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, if you look here, you will see that the article has been originally written (and by checking the history see that it has been substantially edited) by User:Seeplain. In the linked posting, Seeplain admits that he is writing about himself. He "thought it would be appropriate...to have (his) own Wiki entry." Deletion per WP:Notability and WP:Coatrack. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can see how WP:Coatrack applies to this article. It is also true that this is largely an autobiography. However, WP:AUTO and WP:COATRACK are not necessarily reasons for outright deletion. So the question is notability, as usual. Cassini appears to have published articles himself in pretty respectable outlets and has also been discussed in third person, which is enough notability for me. The relevant references already appear in the article. Of course it should be improved by people who know something about the modern trends in road safety and that's why i added an "expert attention needed" tag to it, which was unfortunately removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where we differ and why I have nominated for deletion. First, being an author does not automatically confer notability, no matter the outlet. Second, in my review of the references given I do not consider that the mention him in the "third person" in the manner that has been done is enough to establish notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable and sourceable biography. The first few paragraphs need a vigorous planing for appropriate tone, but that's all it needs. --Lockley (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The rationale for the entry is that in the Wiki entry on Shared Space, Cassini is listed as one of five proponents. The other four have separate entries, so it seemed to make sense for there to be a separate entry for Cassini too, especially in view of his publications. This is an additional Guardian piece by him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/21/congestioncharging.london Seeplain (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Seeplain, in the nomination above, I give information that I used to conclude that you are Martin Cassini. Since WP:AFD#How to discuss an Article for Deletion requests that people participating in the deletion discussion please disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, I will ask. Are you Martin Cassini? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 1 - Is he a "proponent" of shared space of the same notability as the others listed in that article? I thought not. Two months ago, I researched that and could not find evidence of it. I tagged the entry of Martin Cassini in the list as needing a citation. This is beacuse all of the others on that list are on the official website for Shared Space. Martin Cassini is not. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 2 - WP:Bio does not provide that inclusion in a list in an article in WP confers notability on the person. In fact it says "notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent". So only the opposite is true. If the biography of Martin Cassini is considered here to be notable enough for a WP article, then he would be notable enough to include in other articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 3 - Being an author of articles on a subject does not confer notability. Per WP:BIO, there must be articles and sources which tell us about Martin Cassini in order for him to be considered notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The material involves a robust critique of standard traffic engineering practice, with humanitarian proposals for change, so a review by a traffic engineer is arguably irrelevant.Seeplain (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clearly, a robust critique is not appropriate material for an article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 4 - I thought it was self-evident that seeplain is Martin Cassini - made clear at the outset when I was seeking an Adopter. As stated, the motivation was that I saw myself listed as a shared space proponent. I asked an Adopter, Amire80, if a separate entry was warranted, and he thought it was. Then PennySpender came along, who disagrees. Obviously I will abide by whatever is decided. I have no vested interest as such, but I think I have developed new ground in this wide-ranging subject which is being absorbed into mainstream thinking and policy. Other 3rd party references perhaps worth mentioning: I have been quoted as a "traffic expert" by the Daily Express. The Observer Comment editor asked me for a piece which was published. The Evening Standard often contacts me for quotes, as do numerous radio stations. I am quoted and discussed in the forthcoming book, In Search of Elegance, by Matt May, and cited by Tom Vanderbilt as a “fellow traveller”. 91.125.217.6 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Erickson Air-Crane. MBisanz talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport
- Erickson Air-Crane Admin Offices Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N and WP:RS hard. Nothing to merge with at all. Just a private heliport for some business. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Erickson Air-Crane, heliport fails WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Erickson Air-Crane. Katr67 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Erickson Air-Crane (this is getting a little repetitive, no?) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Erickson Air-Crane, a little private heliport does not merit an encyclopaedia article. MvjsTalking 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Erickson Air-Crane#Heliport. No notability on its own. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that I think about it, I don't know why a merge would be good either. A private heliport is not able to be used by the public. It has no sources on it. How is it encyclopedic? Undead Warrior (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On this one, Delete, Redirect or Merge are basically synonymous recommendations because a more-than-adequate mention of the heliport has already been added to Erickson Air-Crane. The result in any of these cases will be a redirect pointing from here to there. Ikluft (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. and none likely to emerge. Merging or not is an editorial discussion that doesn't require further AfD and there's no consensu to delete TravellingCari 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport
- St. Elizabeth Hospital Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Possible merge, but if there is no article about the hospital, delete. The previous AfD for this one was based off of a general feeling about inherent notability which has been changed. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to St. Elizabeth Health Services, which I just created. The hospital is surely slightly more notable than the heliport. Katr67 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would totally oppose merging this to the Baker County, Oregon article as suggested in the previous afd, though it might make sense to merge the hospital article there. Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The hospital article is going to need some reliable sources which are specifically about the hospital in order to achieve notability of its own. So far I don't see it. I'm not ruling out that it may exist. I did a Google search and found many mentions of the facility. Most seemed to be derived from databases of hospitals. Newspaper articles or something from the local governments specifically about the facility would work if you can find them. Ikluft (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe previous AfD, from two months ago, got it right. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass WP:RS and WP:N. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one recommended canvassing. I pointed out that your argument that the consensus on the aviation page is irrelevant to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just trying to help here... I can see UW's wording didn't seem to work for E, but does show frustration on UW's part. I understood the intent as UW asking E to provide clearer description of the reasoning behind the statements as WP:Consensus and WP:POLLS recommend. This needs to be a discussion, not just casting votes. Knowing the editor's thoughts behind a conclusion, rather than just the conclusion, helps us to meaningfully discuss the matter. Ikluft (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but why the frustration? It is just a discussion on the merits of an article about a heliport. I know this is not a vote but a !vote. I thought I made it clear that the last AfD (which was only two months ago) offered a satisfactory conclusion to the previously-debated question and that there was no reason to revisit the subject. I hope that helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have proven, this is not enough by a long shot. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People are often asked about their points in AfD. It's an every day thing. You are being asked about yours because you are the only person who is saying keep. It would be the same in any other AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct. If you read the last AfD, I supported keeping the article based solely on the arguments put forth by our Chilean friend. I felt his arguments were succinct -- and rather than repeat them verbatim or try to paraphrase them, I simply stated that my support was based on his presentation. As for this discussion, I still believe the arguments from the last AfD (which was only two months ago) remain valid and that no cogent argument was made to justify removing an article that was closed as Keep so recently. Again, I would ask the nominator to please stop putting a disprortionate focus on my contribution to this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not needling you. I'm stating that you never really gave any point as to why it should be kept in either discussion. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote stands, and I will thank the nominator to cease needling me because I don't agree with him on this particular discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment on the previous AfD was just in agreement to the previous person who had voted keep. The keep votes in the last discussion were trying to claim that all places of transportation have inherent notability and that the FAA directory listings were sources enough. As recent discussions have proven, this is not enough by a long shot. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be ideal if they would bring their opinions here, but, I cannot notify that project due to people who would call that canvassing. Either way, places of transportation are not inherently notable. Nothing is. (Schools are borderline) Every wikipedia article must pass WP:RS and WP:N. When there is a template to put on an aviation page that includes the three sources, the ones that are on every page related to airports, that should ring a bell that the sites aren't really the best. They are just directory listings. Wikipedia is not a directory. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please focus on content and not contributor -- I am not the subject of this discussion and your attempt to put the spotlight on me does not help your cause (though, of course, I loooooove the attention -- who wants my autograph?). Your opinion on the last AfD is strictly an opinion, not a fact. And if there is a CONSENSUS (as opposed to a consensus) on another page about this article, then the people from that other page should bring their consensus here, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your rationale's keep failing to provide anything decent to these discussions. There is a CONSENSUS on the aviation page that states pages like these are to be deleted or merged. The last AfD had comments comparable to jokes. The last AfD had nothing right. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you think y'all could take this discussion to your talk pages? Katr67 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment back Sure! Everyone come on over to my place -- you're all welcome! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Consensus shown by AfD records is that private-use airports are verifiable via FAA airport records but fail WP:N unless they have other WP:RS specifically about them. This one fails by those criteria. I wrote an essay expanding on private-use airports failing notability at User:Ikluft/essay/Private-use airports. Ikluft (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to hospital article. No notability on its own, but an article about a hospital would be notable and it is worth noting the presence of a heliport at the hospital. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have WP:RS of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly. Ikluft (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, understood. But we all know truth is not Wikipedia's test for notability. It needs WP:RS - and is technically in WP-policy limbo without it. I might add a {{notability}} tag if no one adds any sources soon. Ikluft (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 100+ years of history and it may be the only hospital in that county. I seriously doubt it could be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful... the hospital article is new and doesn't have WP:RS of its own yet. Unless that gets fixed, it could be up for a prod/AfD of its own shortly. Ikluft (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEMAND Campaign
- DEMAND Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]. Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport, and the article as it is is very soapboxy. I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport.
The "campaign news" lists all related news articles, some of which cover the campaign directly. AmaltheaTalk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are IMHO inadequately substantiated and thus the proposal to delete should be rejected.
a) "Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]" - the extent cannot be readily quantified, but the vast majority of the local articles appear to have broken URLs and can no longer be easily traced. Some of the key issues precede the timeframe of articles listed. The domain is complex - which includes for example, planning and environmental legislation, and also the consideration of commercial, private and political interests - and cannot be readily distilled by a layperson or newcomer simply perusing news stories.
b) "Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport" - why should this render the Wikipedia entry as lacking merit ? Using the same argument, why not scrap the individual airport entries and simply have a generalised entry for UK airports ? NB There are also 'pro-airport' campaign groups, which equally warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia.
c) "the article as it is is very soapboxy" - As a constructive suggestion, why not edit the content to remedy this perceived shortcoming ?
d) "I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport" - Why isn't it 'important enough' ?
Lemotsjuste, 6 October 2008 (apologies if this response doesn't accord with Wikipedia protocol in any way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response is perfectly fine. However, I'm still not convinced.
To quote the basic inclusion guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here.
I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news". All articles hosted at http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ or http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/ are broken and I couldn't find them elsewhere. Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic.
There are still a number of articles left where the campaign or its chairman is mentioned: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
The ones that come closest to significant coverage are the first four in the Melton Times. All others that I found are basically name drops of the campaign or its spokesperson. Note that I haven't looked at all of them, only those with headlines that looked promising.
Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of all of those I think it should be deleted.
I don't blame other editors for not wanting to take part in this discussion, it's not a very attractive AfD, but hopefully someone finds the time to give a third opinion.
AmaltheaTalk 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Amalthea. I looked through some of the links at http://www.demand.uk.net/campaign-news.asp Most seem to cover the issue rather than DEMAND and do not mention DEMAND by name. Many links and footnotes in the article also cover the issue rather than the organization. As for the organization itself, I too found the coverage available to be insufficient. Most are passing mentions and nothing that I would call in-depth. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also per Amalthea. There arearticles onthe problem, but little to nothing on the group itself. At best, this is a merge as a sentence or so at East Midlands Airport. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the elaboration.
a) "I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news"... Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic" - Agreed.
b) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here. - The campaign has received predominantly regional coverage in the print media (mainly Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire newspapers), which qualify as "independent of the subject". Archived editorial stories specifically citing the organisation which have been traced, and which would have also appeared in print as well as on the web, total 44:
www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk ... 13 off www.thisisnottingham.co.uk ... 13 off www.meltontimes.co.uk ... 3 off www.meltonmowbraytoday.co.uk ... 3 off www.loughboroughecho.net ... 1 off www.harboroughtoday.co.uk ... 1 off www.burtonmail.co.uk ... 2 off www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk ... 8 off
The archive is incomplete and so this probably understates the actual editorial coverage but 44 serves as a useful order of magnitude.
National print media coverage includes: Free to find out all you want? - Sunday July 24, 2005 The Observer What if it's in your back yard? - Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer
There has been other coverage nationally, e.g., mentioning the organisation, but not naming it: Focus: New plan revealed for flight-path Britain, The Sunday Times, February 11, 2007
c) "Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide."
The airport has been described as: "... the second largest international freight hub in the UK (after Heathrow), and the largest for the volume carried on dedicated freight aircraft. NEMA serves as a national express freight hub specialising in the movement of high-value, low-weight items and so serves many growth sectors of the economy including pharmaceuticals ..."
Source: 'A flourishing region: Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006-2020', East Midlands Development Agency jointly with the East Midlands Regional Assembly, undated but circa 2006, p.95
Express air freight relies heavily on night-time operations, and according to government data the airport had the highest concentration of night-time flights in the UK:
UK Night Air Transport Movements For 2003 (23:30-06:00 hrs):
Nottingham East Midlands 14,184 Gatwick 13,155 Manchester 9,551 Liverpool 9,447 Stansted 9,046 Luton 6,458 Heathrow 5,969 Edinburgh 5,242 Birmingham 4,592 Glasgow 2,841 Cardiff 1,522
Source: Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, Department for Transport, July 2004 (p.38)
However, it has been claimed in court, and with no apparent refutation by the planning authority, that a major runway extension received planning approval contrary to the environmental assessment requirements of European and national (UK) legislation:
"The proposed ground of challenge is that the DC [district council] breached its obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 ... - the Regulations by which the UK implemented EC Directive 85/337/EEC - by granting the 1994 consent without first considering 'the environmental information' and to that end requiring an environmental statement"
Source: Regina v. North West Leicestershire District Council & EMA ex parte Moses, Court of Appeal, 12th April 2000
Consequently, a night-time noise control scheme formulated by the airport and its customers (primarily express air freight operators) was imposed on the local community by UK national government in 2002. This scheme was considered inadequate and therefore unacceptable by the planning authority and local residents' groups.
Sources: i) "EMA produced its own enhanced noise control scheme, which the main night operators DHL, TNT and UPS, under the aegis of the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES), were willing to accept." (2003 Report to Ministers, Letter from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 10 February 2005, ii) Letter to NW Leicestershire District Council from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 18th June 2002
Lemotsjuste, 8 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: do you have access to anyone with some specialist knowledge of the domain (UK air transportation), and who doesn't have a conflict of interests, who could review this ?
Lemotsjuste, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.32.104 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
- Do not delete -- This seeme a legitimate subject and adequately referenced. The question is whether it should remain as an article (Keep or be merged to become a section in East Midlands airport, perhaps trimmed in length. If merged, it might be better to entitle the (new) section "noise pollution complaints. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Category:Ships by place of construction
The category Ships by place of construction has been nominated for deletion. All interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]