Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Chicago south suburban 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Chicago south suburban airport

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has been tagged for notability issues for 18 months; its content chronology has not been updated in 5 years. The primary topic of the article is about something that does not currently exist (and probably never will at this point). SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

*Delete and condense content to move to Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article). To further support repackaging the content within another article, this article has relatively few articles that link to it (although not literally orphaned). --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and move limited content to Chicago_metropolitan_area#Transportation --Cornellier (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports may be a better location (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article) --SteveCof00 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the spirit of Wikipedia is a work in progress. In my opinion, the project meets GNG and notability doesn't change because a project needs an update. There are plenty of proposed transit projects that have articles. See Category:Proposed public transportation in the United States and Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure in the United States for examples. The idea it is likely not to happen (hell I think it's a bad idea) should not impact if it has an article. If the end result of this is keep, I can commit to improving the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't nominate and then vote again. So I struck your delete above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with a quick source search (I used the search term "Peotone Airport") turning up tons of news articles discussing the proposal and the controversy associated with it.  Notability is the only actionable issue raised by the deletion proposal; the fact that it hasn't been updated isn't a reason for deletion and Mpen320 has already volunteered to do some updates.   RecycledPixels (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know to what extent I am allowed to make updates while this is being proposed for deletion. Obviously, I cannot delete the deletion notice.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want to improve the article during the deletion discussion, at the risk of what you do being deleted if the consensus here eventually tips toward deletion.  Of course, improvements to the article may also help sway opinions towards a keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Meets notability criteria as a proposed infrastructure project. A simple google search turned up numerous articles on the topic from third party sources. Whilst not a defense in itself other such articles exist such as London Britannia Airport for proposed airports where there is significant coverage of the proposal. If it needs to be updated then it should be updated but not deleted Tracland (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the proposal is dead, then the current article name and its category inclusion is inappropriate. That some political activity happened that Wikipedia should document has been effectively argued by the keep side; that it should be an article documenting a thing that doesn't exist and apparently won't has not been. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 25 June 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.