Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirportWatch

: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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[AirportWatch]]=

:{{la|AirportWatch}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AirportWatch Stats])

:({{Find sources|AirportWatch}})

NPOV, notability, WP:NOT Petebutt

I have nominated this article as i feel that it needs to be assessed for notability and particularly for neutral point of view and also assessed in the light of talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. It appears notable (members include GreenPeace, Friends of the Earth, National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and more) and it was mentioned by the BBC on 13 Oct 2012[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19934804] and then in the Guardian on the day this proposal for deletion was raised.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/17/gatwick-airport-second-runway]. The organisation has issued briefings in July and September this year so is clearly still operational.[http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?page_id=149] I am not clear what bit of WP:NOT is applicable. Also, NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but rather for improvement. It may be useful for people to review the parallel discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plane Stupid questioning the same reasoning by the same petitioner on the same day for an article about an aviation protest group. PeterEastern (talk)
  • Keep - Clearly makes notability, although it needs some work to expand it and so on, these are not reasons to delete articles on notable subjects. As long as the subject is notable we fix them, not delete them. Also at the point of AfD nom it didn't seem to have any NPOV issues that I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • keep lots of solid book hits show notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Reiteration of earlier keep. The reasons for it's deletion are given above as non-neutral POV and WP:NOT. I have also just noticed that the proposer explained on talk:AirportWatch his reasons for claiming NOT, which were that WP was not 'a soap box for any politics let alone looney left politics'. Should notable articles not stay regardless of their politics, be they looney left, looney right or entirely reasonal? Would it not sway the balance and usefulness of WP to get rid of all the articles describing 'looney' organisations, or even worse to get rid of only the 'looney left' articles? Is there any evidence that it is 'looney left' anyway and how would one prove that? PeterEastern (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.