User talk:FOARP/Archives/2023/August

Airline destination deletion nominations

Thank you for nominating all those articles for deletion. I have a question: do you plan on nominating other similar articles from Category:Lists of airline destinations for deletion soon? Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No. Others may nominate them (and if they do and I happen to see the AFD, I’ll probably !vote delete if they are like the ones I’ve already nominated), but I do not plan on going on a slash-and-burn campaign right now. I think we should give the article-creators/maintainers a chance to come up with something other than deletion, be it merging, improving (though I don’t think there’s any way of being kept as-is, I don’t know everything), moving to Wikivoyage/a fandom wiki, or something else. There is, after all, no deadline.

I also have to say that preparing these AFDs is a lot of work. Each of the lists I’ve added to the Aviation DELSORT easily took ~30 mins or so of work on average. It would have been easy to simply say “fails WP:NOT, look at the 2018 RFC” but I don’t think that is sufficient. Part of the argument I’m making is that these also aren’t notable under WP:CORP and can’t be verified except from the airline website, and that means checking all the sourcing. This is to avoid a discussion that simply turns in to “it’s useful” versus “it’s not useful”, which are just two sides of the same fallacy (usefulness per se is not very decisive of whether something is kept or not). The point is not just that giving all the destinations for an airline on some random day in 2012 is not useful, but that there’s nothing notable about a full list of the destinations of an airline on that day.

Furthermore, a review of the other bundled AFDs/discussions in 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2018 shows them to have been very high-drama and I don’t think that’s good for any one. AFDs are necessarily time-limited affairs pointing towards two major outcomes (keep or delete) and it’s possible a third option could be arrived at that would make everyone happier. Proceeding with individual nominations/smaller batches is likely just to jam up AFD with too many nominations (same problem as with mass-created stubs) and that wouldn’t be fair on the people closing the AFDs.

This is not to say that nothing needs doing or I nominated the ones I’ve already nominated just to make a point: there is a community consensus against these articles, they do fail multiple policies and guidelines (not just WP:NOT), and it is not sufficient to hide behind assertions of usefulness/tenure/other-stuff-exists. If, after a decent interval (not setting a deadline or ultimatum - just giving time to see how things play out after the last AFD closes) nothing has been done, then it would be time to take further steps. FOARP ([[Userdelete

talk:FOARP#top|talk]]) 04:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious

persons and vibes

Thank you for quality articles such as Sweden during World War I, The Coming War with Japan and Harry Pollitt, for your plans about women writers from Sweden, for your essay about Gravedancing, for expressing vibes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2866 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt - Thanks for the positive vibes! Very nice to be appreciated! FOARP (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)FOARP