Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Extreme Airports

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. Secret ^account 16:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Extreme Airports[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I disagree with the PROD, but I agree there are no reliable sources. Does this article need to be deleted? My opinion is weak keep. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 10:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Your statement questioning whether it "needs" to be deleted misses the point. See, e.g., WP:NOHARM. The relevant question is whether it meets our notability guidelines. You haven't indicated any support for a notion that it does. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about notability. Just delete it then if you're so worried about it. The article is notable like Roodog2k said. I agree totally with him. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 04:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care about notability. But that is the basis for any !vote that counts. We don't weigh !votes that are not notability-based. See WP:ILIKEIT. And Roo's comment has the problems that have already been indicated. Where do you see the requisite presence of coverage in RSs? I understand that you are in the eighth grade, and wish you will in your career here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for an examiner article and it is listed as a spam website here. Put examiner.com in front of /article/top-ten-most-extreme-airports That's the only piece of notable evience I can find. By the way, thanks for looking at my user page. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:TVSERIES, it's notable. The History Channel is not a local cable station and has a national audience. The title of the article should change to reflect that it's a tv series and not a list. The article is also a stub, but being a stub is not by itself a rationale for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is a documentary. As reflected both in the article and in the ref. A documentary is different than a tv series.

Second, even when it comes to a tv series, the deciding factor is not whether it has a national audience. But whether it has the requisite RS coverage. This is made clear in wp:tvseries, which says: "Generally [it] is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of ... television stations ... or on a cable television network with a national audience.... In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone".

Where do you see the requisite presence of coverage in RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought the series aired in several episodes, but I was mistaken. I misread a source. The deciding factor for me was that it was a series, not a one-off program. Roodog2k (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking a second look. Some editors are too bound to their original !votes to do so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around a long time. I don't get worked-up when someone makes a good point. Roodog2k (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't act like you're better than me and patronize me. Yes, you are definitely experienced. I get that. I'm not, but I'm also not a newbie. Yes, I do have an obvious conflict of interest and the only place I can go is nowhere. I'm destined to lose this argument. I should have just removed the PROD template in the first place. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 01:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

¿cómo? I wasn't paying any attention to what else you were saying on this AfD. It wasn't meant to be a slight on you. Sorry for the confusion, but I had no ill-intent. After looking at the whole discussion, I see that it does look like I was throwing barbs at you. I apologize for the confusion. Roodog2k (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2013 (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.