Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Airports with Full Body Scanners

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. Courcelles 01:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airports with Full Body Scanners[edit]

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

This article was originally "prod"ed with the reason given as "Non-useful list. Given the state of the full body scanner controversy in the United States, these scanners will eventually either go away or become ubiquitous." Prod removed by an IP editor with no other history of edits. So, we'll let the AFD process run. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Until all airports worldwide either install or abandon this technology, this list is one of the more useful lists for those of us with Tin foil hats. In the absence of a policy based reason for deletion I can only conclude it should be kept, wikified and expanded to airports worldwide. Yoenit (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as a rather pointy reason to keep an article. We are constructing an encyclopedia here, not an airport watchdog list. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The major problem I see with this list is whether it can be maintained. It's a great resource, drawn from a USA Today article, and I've added the link into the article full body scanner. It's current as of November 20 and shows a TSA list of 68 airports in the U.S. that have the scanners. The 69th, 70th, 71st are going to be less certain. I suppose that someone could make a regular search of the news to find a local news article that says that the airport has added a scanner, along with the predictable "what-did-you-think?" interviews with people who have made the "scans or hands" choice. Whether someone could do a regular update doesn't mean that someone would. Mandsford 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We will never know if it can be maintained if it is deleted now. Why would no list be better than an incomplete list? We can always add {{outdated}} to warn users. Yoenit (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mainly on WP:NOTDIRECTORY grounds. An online encyclopedia is not a venue to make policy/ideological stances like this. While the subject of controversial body scans is certainly notable, an article simply listing the airports that conduct such searches is not. The link to the USA Today article would be perfect for the external links section of the appropriate article on the subject. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- your assertion that such a list is not notable is contradicted by the fact that the USA today , Jaunted [1], The Consumerist [2], Gizmodo [3] and CNN travel [4] all have articles containing a list of body scanners. There are also several articles who link to the official government list of bodyscanners in air ports. I also don't see any "ideological stances" being taken, or which part of wp:NOTDIR applies here, so would you be so kind to clarify that? Yoenit (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No amount of sourcing is going to make a laundry list of airports into anything but a simplistic directory. Just because said screening is controversial and notable does not mean that the collective airports are notable for performing them. There's just no need for this information to be in an encyclopedia article, other than as an external link. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to full body scanner. Everyone has their own idea of what "ought to be" in an encyclopedia, and sometimes those feelings run strong. I believe that this is certainly something that people would consult an encyclopedia to learn about. The issue is whether it merits an article of its own, rather than being placed or linked within an existing page. If not kept here, it should be kept somewhere; I think that a merge consensus would be more likely to keep the info or link from being edited out. Mandsford 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree completely with the prodder ... this is like a List of stores stocking the hot new album by That Guy. Thousands of these devices are on order, and maintaining this list to anywhere remotely close to accuracy will be next to impossible. For my money, by the bye, if I want to know if my local airport has these scanners, I'm about a hundred times less likely to decide that Wikipedia must have accurate information on it as call the damn airport. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ravenswing 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and a current list is already in the external link section of the full body scanner article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unmaintainable list. If some reliable source ever manages to maintain an up-to-date list of airports using full body scanners, it would be.a great EL in the full body scanner article. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (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.