Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koumac 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Closers are here to assess the deletion discussion and clearly the consensus is to Keep this article. Opinion hasn't changed after a relist and, in fact, has resulted in new sources being found. If the nominator is set on having this article deleted, I'd try another AFD in six months. A visit to Deletion Review will not end in your favor as there is no support here for Deletion. At best, this discussion could close as No consensus rather than Keep but I am persuaded that the consensus is to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Koumac Airport

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I was only able to find non-significant coverage for this airport, namely this, this and this. Fails WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: I had closed as Keep. Relisting per request on my Talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, France,  and Oceania. Pilaz (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering this is an airport with scheduled commercial airline service, I'd be very surprised if it actually failed WP:GNG. I've found and a couple mentions here, along with a large list of Google Books results in French I'm having difficulty translating, and some hits from New Caledonia including some very routine stories such as     including how the airfield fire truck was stolen, so it's not as if there's nothing at all out there about this airport, and I'm absolutely convinced there's more out there, just that it's difficult to access, as I had to go outside simple searches to find anything. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Musée Maritime is a passing mention ("aérodrome de Koumac"). RSMA also only offers a passing mention. I don't have access to sources 2, 3, 4 and 5, but without a single sentence about the airport, it certainly trends towards trivial coverage, unless proven otherwise. A series of fire trucks being stolen from an aerodrome does not mean said aerodrome is notable unless it is the source of the actual coverage (I would expect, at the very minimum, a couple of sentences about said airport in an article from the local press). Pilaz (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Museé Maritime shows the airport was used during the second World War, and there are some other links available to support that. The articles I posted were routine stories about the airport going back to 2020, including the theft of a fire truck and the fact there would be an airshow there. The point, though, is that the airport has been frequently mentioned in local press, and that there should be sources out there to make this article pass GNG. Often times at AfD the argument is over whether the only 3-4 sources show notability, in this case there appear to be a lot of local mentions, and mentions in both travel guides as a place to start visiting the region and books showing it housed the 2nd US battalion during WWII. There's plenty of information to build an article on here. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All I'm going to add is that we're looking for SIGCOV about the airport here, not just tangential mentions. Notability is determined by multiple reliable, independent sources covering the subject in detail, not by a list of single sentence trivial mentions. Surely, if the topic is notable, those must exist, but until they are found we remain in the domain of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. Pilaz (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. Plenty of sources do exist. I have not performed an exhaustive search, just newspaper archives for three years, and a couple books. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, for reasons given above by SportingFlyer. Vontheri (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Leaning on the reasoning of WP:ITSACASTLE StreetcarEnjoyer  (talk)  02:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It seems odd to undo a unanimous keep consensus simply because the nominator isn't pleased with the results... I said "Keep, for reasons given above by SportingFlyer" because I thought they gave a sufficient argument such that no further was needed, so I was expressing agreement to give more credence to their arguments. But regardless, here are further that I have found...
 * Most of the sources are not going to be in English, but there are English mentions of the airport on these reliable sources here and here, and an English reference to the ambulance incident already mentioned from a non-English source. Here is some very general information about the airport.
 * It also looks like multiple travel guides mention the airport.
 * Is it as notable as a New York or a Beijing airport? No, of course not. But it is certainly notable enough to have an article. Vontheri (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also this describes it as "a midsized airport", so it is not just some tiny insignificant airport. Vontheri (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for elaborating beyond WP:PERX. I wasn't going to intervene to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING, but since you mention me, let me just add that there seems to be a misunderstanding. Beyond the fact that deletion discussions are not mere votes, the issue I have is that airports are not inherently notable - they have to pass the General notability guideline like every other non-guideline specific articles. And the problem isn't that the airport doesn't appear in reliable sources, it's that it is only barely mentioned. As far as I can tell, none of the sources presented in this discussion help meet WP:SIGCOV, one of the pillars of the GNG: the first source you offer only gives a passing mention; the second one you offer is also only a passing mention, but also generally unreliable (WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING); the Medical Air Service is neither independent from the airport nor offers significant coverage about it. The two other sources seem to simply gather easily-accessible data (simply listing ICAO, ICAN codes does not a notable airport make). Travel guides are tertiary sources, and since we're only looking for secondary sources, those do not help meet the GNG either.
 * You can refute the thesis that this airport has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. You just have to find sources that satisfy all the criteria of the GNG and show them here. Otherwise, it's good to remember that not all airports have articles or need articles - some can simply live an accessible life to the reader through a redirect, such as the ones that do not have articles in List of airports in New Caledonia. Pilaz (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) last edited Pilaz (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an airport with scheduled commercial airline service which hosted a battalion during World War II and which frequently hosts air shows and regularly gets at least mentions in local newspaper articles. I don't know what coverage exactly you're looking for, but we can write a very decent little article on it using the secondary coverage that exists, and this is a very easy keep !vote, and I have absolutely no idea why you think listifying this will improve the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no misunderstanding. We simply disagree about what meets notability standards or not. I know that wikipedia does not consider deletion discussions to be votes, but I do know that the fact that a discussion being unanimous (apart from the nominator) does normally result in a "keep" outcome and does carry some weight, if not de jure then at least de facto.
 * May I ask exactly how you think the encyclopedia would be improved by removing the article? What harm is the article causing?
 * If I knew French then I'm sure this would be easier to find more references. But I have found these three in English that mention the military use and history of the airport: reference 1 reference 2 reference 3 Vontheri (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that @SportingFlyer and I have added new content and references to the article which hopefully will be sufficient to convince a "keep". I'm sure that over time, if the article is not deleted, more references will be uncovered and the article can grow, giving useful information to readers. Vontheri (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2024 (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.