Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities
Listmania, seriously this list has an identity crisis - it has the coords of US airports, but wikilinks not to those airports but to the town/city nearby. We already have List of airports in North America (moving to categories) and airports themself will have accurate coordinates. This is not verified, see: Talk:Latitude and longitude of airports near U.S. cities and nobody has stepped up to clean it up and verify it since December 2004 - the only edits have been wiki maint. This list is not maintainable, or encyclopedic. thanks/wangi 13:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC) ---J.S (t|c) 19:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per nom -- MrDolomite 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The content of the article/list doesn't even have to do with airports it seems... Wickethewok 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Washington" leads to Dulles and "New York" leads to Central Park, odd indeed. - Sekicho 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the cord info into List of airports in North America since that info is actual encyclopedic.
 * Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even if it didn't, "Most of the data is unverified, and some of it is incorrect." Fails WP:V. --Coredesat 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge actual data to List of airports in North America and redirect there --- if someone wants information that would be a valid search, but to have its own article would be redundant.
 * Comment: However "Most of the data is unverified, and some of it is incorrect."... - nobody has tackled this since December 2004, I find it unlikely anyone will. /wangi 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems beyond repair, although I'd like to hear what the article's author and main contributor has to say. (I've informed them of this.) Grand  master  ka  05:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't my idea, I just ended up working on it for some reason. I would have voted delete. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) 03:17, 20 July 2006 (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.