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.
Comment I'm going to wait for some more feedback before voting. The reason why is I'd like to know if we have some type of policy or precedent of giving airports auto-notability. As per
WP:RAILOUTCOMES, train stations are given auto-notability. So I think it would make sense that an airport would be given the same status since airports are certainly more notable than a train station.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The page you cite specifically states that it is not a policy or guideline. It only states: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." That is not auto-notability. Nor should it be.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per
Notability (geographic features): Buildings *** may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. This article provides no references, let alone any authoritative references, that would show such coverage.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The very next section states: [T]here must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I see no significant attention from independent sources.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This is tough, normally I would say no sources = no article, but I have to believe that any commercial airport would be notable. I think the sources we're looking for are probably in Russian, but being that I can't read Russian, I can't add them.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Actual working airport. Commercial service no less -
KrasAvia airlines to
Norilsk. All the nom had to do was click to
Russian WP to see it's a working airport with coverage to boot. I can't imagine an article for a US commercial airport no matter how small even being considered for AfD. Might this be a case of
WP:BIAS? --
Oakshade (
talk)
04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment- I added a source to the article. It's not a great source but at least verifies the airports existence. Hopefully someone can find some better sourcing. I still say if all train stations have articles then commercial airports should too (there are far fewer of them).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Not too sure about no significant coverage in Google News, but there was some certain notable topic on this geographic features.
SA 13 Bro (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 2018 (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.
Comment I'm going to wait for some more feedback before voting. The reason why is I'd like to know if we have some type of policy or precedent of giving airports auto-notability. As per
WP:RAILOUTCOMES, train stations are given auto-notability. So I think it would make sense that an airport would be given the same status since airports are certainly more notable than a train station.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The page you cite specifically states that it is not a policy or guideline. It only states: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." That is not auto-notability. Nor should it be.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per
Notability (geographic features): Buildings *** may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. This article provides no references, let alone any authoritative references, that would show such coverage.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The very next section states: [T]here must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I see no significant attention from independent sources.--
Rpclod (
talk)
02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This is tough, normally I would say no sources = no article, but I have to believe that any commercial airport would be notable. I think the sources we're looking for are probably in Russian, but being that I can't read Russian, I can't add them.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Actual working airport. Commercial service no less -
KrasAvia airlines to
Norilsk. All the nom had to do was click to
Russian WP to see it's a working airport with coverage to boot. I can't imagine an article for a US commercial airport no matter how small even being considered for AfD. Might this be a case of
WP:BIAS? --
Oakshade (
talk)
04:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment- I added a source to the article. It's not a great source but at least verifies the airports existence. Hopefully someone can find some better sourcing. I still say if all train stations have articles then commercial airports should too (there are far fewer of them).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
00:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: Not too sure about no significant coverage in Google News, but there was some certain notable topic on this geographic features.
SA 13 Bro (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 2018 (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.