Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most runways at an 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   speedy delete. Author blanked Jac 16888  Talk 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of most runways at an airport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced, and possible WP:OR. Is the amount of runways a airport have a important characteristic or trivia? The article was proded but the editor who created it, took down the prod without explanation....William 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Snow delete - completely useless list, "runway" isn't even defined. Heathrow had as many as 12 runways at one time, but isn't even mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment The article's creator blanked the page....William 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's unsourced, it's original research, even the title barely makes sense. I doubt it even satisfies the general notability guideline - a paragraph in the Guinness book of records is not sufficient. bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. My initial Google search on this found discussions of the topic at some aircraft enthusiast websites and general information websites like  Yahoo Answers, but not anywhere that I'd consider a clearly reliable source establishing notability of "most runways" as a list topic.  The topic is not inherently unencyclopedic, however; for example, a properly sourced statement that an airport has the most (or among the most) runways would be appropriate to include in that airport's article.  Searching the phrase "most runways" is tricky, so it's possible something might turn up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suspect that this article is badly mis-named. It seems to be a list of the number of runways by airport, with the "most" referring only to the top entry not the topic. As such, this information is surely available for the majority of airports and cannot be considered OR, just unreferenced. So if the topic is deemed notable, this page could be moved and not deleted. I see it as the sort of topic a serious researcher might be interested in, though referencing its notability might be difficult. However, to look a little wider, it might be better still to merge the content with the List of longest runways content into a single sortable multi-column table at say List of airport runways, before deleting the present nonsensical title after all I have said. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete basically this is something that might pop up in a trivia quiz down at the pub, but otherwise it is a pointless comparison without a clear purpose that falls foul of WP:NOT and its admonishment that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - number of runways is certainly not a corollary to how busy a given airport is; for example Honolulu with its six runways has fewer movements than Sydney with its three runways, and I'd bet that Edwards doesn't have anywhere near the same number of movements as either of them. This would be as worthwhile having as List of airports by land area. YSSYguy (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Falls afoul of both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nomination. --John (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see the notability of the article, it's just an unsourced compilation that borders original research. --Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:51, 4 December 2013 (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.