Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Bengal Cooperative Air Traffic Flow Management System


 * 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 no consensus. Whilst a headcount would favour deletion, the keep !votes are more detailed whereas the deletes are very short with two WP:PERNOMs. As such I am using my administrative discretion to weight the !votes accordingly. As always, I do not change my deletion decisions based on talk page discussion; if you wish to contest this decision please proceed directly to WP:DRV and there is no need to consult with me first. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bay of Bengal Cooperative Air Traffic Flow Management System

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. WP:BEFORE search only turned up a single journal article, a two-sentence mention in a book, and some primary sources, not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. - ZLEA T\C 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - not even close to WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least until we do our homework properly: this search on "Air traffic" BOBCAT on a less-than-topranking search engine produced the selection below on its first page. There are more. I think it probably meets WP:GNG, just needs expansion and more references. Or maybe not. But it's too soon to make a snap judgement here.
 * ICAO report on BOBCAT usage: https://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2011_bbacg21/WP13%20Attachment%20BOBCAT%20Operational%20Updates%20and%20Future%20Enhancements.pdf
 * CANSO study noting BOBCAT : https://www.canso.org/system/files/Implementating%20Air%20Traffic%20Fow%20Management%20and%20Airport-Collaborative%20Decision%20Making.pdf
 * Aerothai article: https://www.aerothai.co.th/en/services/air-traffic-flow-management
 * Research paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310316914_An_Evolutionary_Outlook_of_Air_Traffic_Flow_Management_Techniques
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * [Update] Some more results from the first page returned by a more famous search engine:
 * Description of BOBCAT at Chiang Rai Rajabhat University, Thailand: http://icmr.crru.ac.th/Journal%2010/The%20Bay.pdf
 * Richard Maguire; Safety Cases and Safety Reports: Meaning, Motivation and Management, CRC Press, 2006.
 * Aviation Stack Exchange: "What is the ATFM Project BOBCAT and why is it important?" - not a reliable source but to quote a comment: "ANSPs in the region seem to refer to this and I want to know why".
 * Nothing spectacular in themselves, but there are plenty more results pages where those came from. It does appear that there is a significant story to be unearthed. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll try to rebuttal your other sources later, but I fail to see how Aerothai is at all independent, given that it runs BOBCAT. This was one of the primary sources to which I made reference in my nomination.A similar argument could also be made for the ICAO and CANSO sources; Aerothai is a known partner of both of these organisations.I also don't think Researchgate is an RS. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Researchgate link is to a downloadable copy of a paper published in Progress in Aerospace Sciences. But as I said, while these few quick shots are insufficient, they point the way to more. Let us not be hasty. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The referencing doesn't meet WP:NRV. RedRiver660 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a tool to understand how airspace capacity between Asia and Europe is improved. The text needs elaboration of context, e.g ref. to ICAO & European CFMU. Jcs45 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2020 (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.