Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dikson Airport

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dikson Airport

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Found no significant coverage including in Google News. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Comment, "article provides no references", WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 21 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]
Keep as per Oakshade, commercial airports should get articles as long as they pass WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 21 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]
Keep -- an airport with a scheduled service & an IATA code. Here's a news item from the Russian News Agency TASS: "Located in the eponymous settlement of the Taimyr Municipal District, Dixon is one of the northernmost airports in the country"; can be read via Google translate. Suffient for a stub, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is clearly notable, there are several good sources, it's used and designated, and articles about train/air stations are generally kept at AfD. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commercial airports are clearly notable. I don't know why this was even relisted, the consensus was already clear. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 30 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.