Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BU Rob13

Stemoc's Oppose

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * 46k edits in just over a year..I'm sorry but I do not believe that a new user can collect that much in that short a time. Your first few edits seems like the edits of someone who knows how to use wikipedia, so if this is your 2nd account, please mention your first account. There was a time when editors who were on the wiki for less than 6 months could become admins but I think that time has passed...Its hard to support a "new user" who knows the wiki like the back of their hand without accepting the fact that they could very well be 'banned' socks.. (has happened before)..your account is too good to be true..sorry-- Stemoc 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved from RfA page.—cyberpower  Chat :Offline 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never commented on an oppose before, but this needs a response. Assume Good Faith is here for a reason.  Catching on to Wikipedia quickly means absolutely nothing, other than that person is smart and takes the time to learn before they make edits.  What a silly thing to do if you are a banned user: spend a whole year and 46k positive edits just to become an admin?!  And then what, go on a rampage?!  What is the worst case scenario here?  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  02:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The volume of edits is undoubtedly inflated by Rob's use of AWB. But Gonzo_fan2007 is absolutely right. RFA should be about adjudging competence, not throwing shady conspiracies at the candidate. KaisaL (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a large edit count =/= being a sock of a banned user, just like having a small edit count =/= not being a sock of a banned user. Rob's edits have been unequivocally positive, and there is really nothing to suggest anything dubious here. GABgab 02:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stemoc's questions are perfectly legitimate, and easily answered. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Other parties should stop being :"Shocked! Shocked!", and BU Rob13 should simply answer the questions: Did you have a previous account?  If not, how do you account for 46K edits in a bit over a year? There are plenty of good, acceptable answers to question two, and all parties are reminded that over the last decade we've been hit hard by a number of admins -- and even arbs -- who had previous accounts that we knew nothing about. Personally, I think every admin should be CUed as part of the RfA process, but that's an idea that's obviously not shared by the rest of the community. BMK (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stemoc did not ask any questions. Stemoc opposed based on their belief that Rob is a sock of a banned user, specifically accusing him as such ("your account is too good to be true"). That hits at the very core of what it means when we say that we are supposed to assume that everyone is here to contribute positively, until they prove otherwise. If people have concerns, I believe provided a great example on what to do: ask a question, wait for the response, and then make a decision.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  04:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * People have different ways of doing things, at least until the day when we're all produced from test tubes Brave New World style, and raised by robot nannies. Newyorkbrad -- an editor, BTW, I respect tremendously -- does things his way, and Stemoc does things his way.  Neither is "right" and neither is "wrong", so let's not try to make us all as if we were poured into the same mold.Stemoc implicitly asked questions, his !vote was based on what his experiences tell him the answers to those questions are. If BU Rob13 answers those questions, it's possible that Stemoc may change his mind, and it's possible that other editors might do so as well.  Since the answers aren't complex, I fail to see why BU Rob13 wouldn't answer them, and, in fact, I assume good faith that he will. So let's chill on beating down Stemoc for his - under the circumstances - reasonable opinion, and wait to see what happens.  BMK (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though I disagree with the pretense of Stemoc's oppose, I figured there's no harm in at least examining Rob's earliest registered edits. His very first contributions show an unusual proficiency with templates, which is definitely not an area where I'd expect to find a complete newcomer in possession of any real expertise. I'm going to assume that Rob is a good faith user and support his RfA, but I do think there's some evidence to suggest that he has edited here prior to registering this account (likely as an IP editor). Kurtis (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth I used mediawiki the software years before I ever edited Wikipedia. I was familiar with the interface when I got here. HighInBC Need help?  04:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Another very plausible explanation that I can accept. :) Kurtis (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha; yeah, the user made 2000 edits in his first 20 days..I'm not going to pretend to think that its normal for a "newbie" to be able to know so much and be able to do so much in that short time and I'm good with reading edits and his edits were 'professional' or what one would expect from a person who has edited the wiki multiple times before. I did ask for BU Rob13 to tell us if he had a previous account..not to mention he set up a bot account less than 2 month after 'joining'...and was already well-versed in AWB..You can call it whatever you want but no one is that good..I have been around for about a decade and even I can't do AWB very well :( ..Those were my 'red flags' and thus why i voted oppose...-- Stemoc 04:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, I actually came away with the same impression - his earliest edits suggest familiarity with Wikipedia, not just mediawiki. My support is based on the assumption that he is a good-faith editor; worst case scenario, he is seduced by the dark side and becomes the internet equivalent of a Sith Lord. If that happens, we can always just pull the plug. We've done it before and we can do it again. Kurtis (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully noticed comment: FWIW, I accused this user of being a sock when I encountered them on a BRFA, for the same reasons. It turns out that I was very wrong, and apologized to the user later for claiming they were a sock.  The answers they he gave me were satisfactory, and I've had positive interactions with this user since.  Sometimes, something "that is too good to be true", really is true.  This seems to be one of those cases.—cyberpower  Chat :Offline 05:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering how Stemoc feels about the explanation given? HighInBC Need help?  07:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should only have admins with IQs 110 or below, who need years and years to figure stuff out.  E Eng  13:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No kidding. Some people are able to figure out computer things really fast, Rob's comment about being able to learn pretty much any part of Wikipdia in a few hours by reading the instructions is particularly relevant. For some people it is just not that complicated. It may be tricky to some, but there is no reason to assume bad faith because someone has a steeper learning curve. HighInBC Need help?  14:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW I believe 's vote to be unfortunately unwisely formulated. There are other ways of opposing if one must. No wonder we get hardly any one interested in going through RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * While the concerns were valid it certainly could have been done in a less accusatory manner. A polite question about their origin and skills would have been fine, but "I'm sorry but I do not believe that a new user can collect that much in that short a time." is nothing more than an accusation. One can express concerns without calling the other person a liar, especially when those concerns are based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence. Poor form. HighInBC Need help?  15:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I almost feel sorry for Stemoc that he has to get such flak for one oppose... I know I know.... Turtles all the way.... But you know, it's just an oppose, we've beaten the argument out of it and maybe or  can close this discussion...  Lourdes  17:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned that they opposed, and I don't think that is anyone else's concern either. My concern is the assumption of bad faith and the accusation without any real evidence. Frankly the day we stop calling people out for bad reasoning is the day that RfA has truly gone rotten. Discussion is healthy. This is not the place to post an opinion if you don't want people commenting on it. HighInBC Need help?   17:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another inappropriate edit summary
I see that one edit summary has already been removed. Now I would insist that we have another that has no place here: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's recent contribution here. Apparently incapable of making up his mind about his !vote, he's reversed himself with the "amusing" little "Sorry; changing my mind more often than an Essex girl under Southend Pier..." which apparently is some local saying about young women from a place in England who change their mind about putting out -- which of course has absolutely no place here in a project that likes to see itself as accepting of women. The comment must be removed and this experienced editor cautioned in some way. In fact, I'll do that last part myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

YITYNR's Oppose

 * 1) I don't think Rob is ready quiet yet.  While he makes good edits and his DYK track record is impressive, he has only been a member here for a year, with a four-month period of low activity in there too, making his high edit count kind of suspicious.  He has made 46,000 edits in eight months of active editing, and half of them are automated. I don't think that eight months (or even a year) is long enough to be able to familiarise oneself with all the policies quite yet, so I think that if Rob were to keep this up for another year or two, I would not hesitate to support. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an example of WP:NOTQUITEYET abuse. We used to have admins appointed in their 6th month of editing, and we had a good amount of rules. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I became an admin after 9 months. Good enough to make a baby, good enough to make an admin. I do however concede that it was a long time ago(almost 10 years) and that standards of drifted. Of all the desysops I have seen I don't think I have ever seen one due to lack of experience on Wikipedia. It almost always comes down to temperament. HighInBC</b> Need help?   17:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Good enough to make a baby, good enough to make an admin". I just love that quote.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on, are you saying that admins are babies?! That's awful. GABgab 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying I was a baby when I became an admin, now I am almost 10! <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> Need help?   00:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whereas I'm passed 10 in Wikilife, but still a baby admin. Takes all sorts to make the world go round :) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You guys are nuts :D If only everyone could have this attitude while editing around here... Lourdes  01:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If this were the Wikipedia of 2003 where people became admins after a few months, I would be inclined to support. However, the standards have drifted so high above that that this argument now holds very little water.  Most users are looking for at least one to two, if not several, years of active editing, and besides, users with more experience than Rob, such as Cyberpower678, have been nominated unsuccessfully.  I consider myself to be a fairly experienced editor, having joined in October 2014 (well before Rob) and been active for the past year or so, meaning that I check Wikipedia twice per day and spend time at Special:AbuseLog reverting vandalism at least one of those times.  I am well-versed in anti-vandalism procedures and have also created an article, in addition to having made WP:AIV and WP:UAA reports and commented in 2 XfD's, and yet I very strongly doubt I would become an admin, even with twenty months of experience.  YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 10:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My RfA should in no way be used as a criteria for opposing someone newer than me. My RfA failed for other reasons, not a lack of experience.  Every one is different, and even though, he is much newer than, I have no problem facing the fact the Rob may well be a better admin than I can be.  I am however not saying that I would make a terrible admin, or even a remotely bad one at that.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat :Limited Access 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assertion that the standards have drifted so high that most people want 1 or 2 years from a candidate. This very RfA demonstrates that most people will support the person if they demonstrate the skills and temperament needed. I respect the argument, but the support here shows it is not the majority position. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> Need help?   14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, your RFA would fail badly, but it would have nothing to do with tenure on the project. It would be because you've only made 750 edits total, because you've only commented in two XFDs and because you've only made a single article.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 21:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How many non-automated edits, XfD's, and articles do I need before I should consider applying for adminship? YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 11:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any recent RFA has passed without the candidate having at least a total of 10,000 edits total. Generally, with current RFA standards !voters expect at least 500 edits a month in terms of activity. As for, articles created, around 5 or so neutral, well sourced, and decently long articles will make most !voters happy. However, there are some that at least expect a GA/FA or two. And for XFDs, it depends if you want to work in one of those areas or not. If you do, you'll be expected to be active in that area, and have participated and even made non-admin closures at a decent number of discussions (if, for example, you want to work at AFD, participation in at least 50 or so discussions will keep most people satisifed, any less and you could get some opposes for it). Even if you don't plan on working there, you'll still need to show a bit of experience (i.e more than participation in 2) in commenting there because it shows a good knowledge of the deletion policy. If you want more information try WP:RFAADVICE or ask me on my talk page. Once you think you're ready, you can try WP:ORCP (however, you're nowhere near there yet).  Omni Flames ( talk ) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ten thousand edits? That'll take a guy like me 20 years! YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 11:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Took me four months. If you're serious about the project, you'll find that many edits easy to rack up. Just edit every day, and try to be more active here. Admittedly my edit count is boosted a fair bit through the use of tools like WP:HUGGLE, WP:STIKI and WP:AWB. However, even if you don't choose to use automated tools, you'll easily make hundreds, even thousands of edits a month. It's not really the edit count that matters, though. It's building up experience and showing understanding of our various policies and guidelines that's important. Good luck with that. If you want to discuss this further, my talk page is always open to you {.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 11:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto's Oppose

 * 1) Oppose -- This editor is still wet behind the ears and needs some more experience. I also feel as if they don't appreciate other editor's opinions during content disputes, such as on Catherine Zeta-Jones. It's their way or nothing. Not good.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually see the candidate as being quite respectful in that discussion -- even when another editor may have become somewhat insulting. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It does seem that their comments were reasonable. I do see some "It's their way or nothing" attitude going on there, but not from Rob. May I ask what specifically you object to because I don't see it? <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> Need help?   16:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't discuss my votes, so I suggest  move on.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I only asked to better understand your position. You were very vague, if you don't care to point out what you actually object to then that is fine. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> Need help?   16:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to understand. How can you find a link to a conversation and a comment saying "they don't appreciate other editors points of view" "vague"? I don't discuss the wheres and whyfores of my votes for the same reasons as why I'm not allowed ask those who support to elaborate, as per previous RfAs.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   17:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I see the link, I see the conversation. I see them taking a position that disagrees with yours. I don't any disrespect towards other people's point of view, from Rob. Unless your objection is that they did not agree with you then I don't see the text you are objecting to. So yes, "vague" is exactly the right word, perhaps "unclear" would be better. <b style="color:Navy">HighInBC</b> Need help? 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld's Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Barely 9 months of active editing and " Whenever I go to any article, I read the infobox first for the key details. A good portion of the time, that gives me the information I wanted." which suggests he has little respect for the opinion of others and what he wants takes precedence. If he can't respect the view of the article writer and when to butt out on something like that he's hardly going to make a good, neutral admin is he? Absolutely not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I seemed to have missed the policy that says "if you are debating the suitability of an infobox of an article you cleared through FAC, civility is not only optional, but a hindrance". I think Rob did a fairly good (if ill-advised and ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to calm down things there. It's certainly better than charging in full speed and dishing out a few civility blocks, which is what I recall did happen. I also see that Catherine Zeta Jones failed FAC, and while it wasn't the only reason, instability with the infobox was one charge brought against it. What a waste. :-( <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A decent admin would refrain from "taking sides" and not having the respect for the judgement of the article writers. His opinion was not welcome and combined with others resulted in a decent article not being promoted and a severe cut in the output of the producer. One of the worst things i've experienced here in the last year or two is people who've contributed absolutely nothing to an article turning up to argue or "politely disagree". Rob might have been "civil" but it is inredibly irritating when non article contributors turn up to complain or try to force something, and if he had admin tools quite likely he would use them in disputes of this kind. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins are allowed to have opinions on content disputes. They just need to not take admin action in situations where they are involved in a content dispute. It seems Rob's crime was taking a view contrary to yours. <b style="color:Green">HighInBC</b> Need help?   19:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah; Blofeld, please don't put me in a position where I have to agree with Chillum twice in two days. There's a world of difference between "I personally think everything ought to have an infobox" and "I demand that everything has an infobox", and Rob's comments were squarely in the former camp. &#8209; Iridescent 19:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it still doesn't answer the question of why he actually needed to say anything and get involved with it. Did it help diffuse the situation or antagonize it? I know if it was an article I'd written it would have inflamed the situation. That's largely my point, I don't think he realizes that turning up to offer his pro infobox argument in most cases increases the conflict and bitterness, a decent admin would see that it's a battleground and find a different way to diffuse the situation rather than taking one side.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do any of us get involved with anything? Why are we both involved in this discussion? Other than taking a position that disagreed with yours I don't see what you are so upset about. Different people have different views on infoboxes, and that might inconvenience people who share a given view but it does not make it some sort of slight. I *gasp* happen to like infoboxes. <b style="color:Navy">HighInBC</b> Need help? 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unscintillating's Oppose
In some ways I find that your analysis brings out helpful and comprehensive viewpoints, and yet your analysis above stops short in its WP:ATA review, of the deletion policy that BU Rob13 was either unwilling or unable to identify. Moving on, the argument that WP:SAL does not support one-entry lists was described by BU Rob13 as "Note the plural on items." Grammatical number states, "English treats zero with the plural number.", which leaves us to consider that WP:SAL is ok with zero-entry and two-entry lists but not one-entry lists. No, a technical interpretation of the casual meaning in WP:SAL does not support creating gaps in the coverage of a geographically-related group of list articles, particularly when doing so prevents readers from easily learning how many dioceses exist in Somalia...and for any doubt WP:IAR applies. Note also as per the Greenland AfD that the number of entries in short list articles is not static...so going to WP:REFUND because the number of items on a list changed from one to two is clearly not a meaning to be found in WP:SAL. To your comment, " 'among a group of geographically-related lists' could be a reason to keep the one-element list article, but it was not mentioned in the AfD.", I reply "yes"...this is what happens when the community is presented a policy-absent AfD nomination that is more concerned about the mass-deletion of content contributions that will occur after the SNOW-delete, than assuming the good faith of the article creator, supporting the nutshell of WP:Editing policy, and preparing the AfD community for an AfD discussion. Had the nominator followed WP:BEFORE step A1, this would have led him to WP:DEL14, which in turn would have allowed the discussion to focus on whether this content was suitable for Wikipedia. Also from WP:BEFORE A1, the nomination provides no review of potential merge or redirect targets, yet early in the discussion the nominator states, "I support merging this bit of information there, and it's probably also the appropriate redirect target. ~ RobTalk 20:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) BU Rob13 could have saved the day by withdrawing the nomination at that point.  Instead we are left with an interpretation from the heat of battle of how to apply WP:A10, that being when a new article is "nothing outside of a link to the one article [which] duplicates the information of that article".  I think this rationale equally applies to a new soft redirect, but its logic is dense.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose  I had to get out the editor interaction analyzer to remember where I'd encountered this editor.  It was at Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia.  I had to explain to him how to read "WP:NPASR".  This is the skill set of an AfD newbie.  We see in the comment from Laurel Lodged that the nomination disrupted ongoing work.  To try to be fair, I sincerely found his reply about STEM skills to be pleasantly humorous, but in his follow up he confused "empty sets" with "empty lists".  Moving on, like MSJapan, I noticed the RfC closing that started with "I'm involved...but,..."  Starting out a closing by implying that you are disregarding WP:INVOLVED, appears to be a sign of inexperience.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "To try to be fair" I don't think that that sentence is fair at all. The way I read BU Rob13's comments, he understood exactly what your point was regarding one-element lists, supplying an additional example of an "empty set". It is true that a list with one element (or even no elements) is a list in one sense of the word list, just as an empty set is a set in one sense of the word set. However, a list with one element is not a list in the sense "a number of connected items or names written or printed consecutively" or "[a] series of items" as written at WP:SAL, which is what I think people understand as the meaning of list without further context. (And yes, I know that the English plural is used to refer to an unknown count, which may be 1, but I think that one item is not colloquially considered a list.) « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 15:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The AfD nomination discussed here is dated three days before the date of this RfA, and IMO shows multiple concerns. You suggest that the candidate's AfD nomination is explained with a "colloquial" viewpoint, which seems constructive; so informally, we have "STEM-skills meaning" vs. "colloquial meaning". As I see them, the red-link examples the candidate gave show no concept of the purpose of a one-entry list among a group of geographically-related lists.  IMO the examples were at best off-topic. But the AfD nomination here goes further.  The candidate seems to think that his knowledge of the encyclopedia is sufficiently vast that he is working with a "precedent" for creating articles with one-element lists.  In the candidates view, WP:ATA (arguments to avoid) are fine arguments for an AfD nomination as long as the editor gives a reason...and the candidate ignored the suggestion to amend the nomination to add "WP:IAR".  In the nomination, the candidate is planning what he'll do after the expected WP:SNOW delete, that being a mass deletion of content contributions.  Regarding the article being considered for deletion, the candidate asserts that he'd have been able to use speedy delete criteria A10 if the article were newly created.  The candidate has rendered an opinion about the closing by Cool Hand Luke in 2011 (whose page says he is trained as both a chemist and an attorney) as "a rather poor reading of consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that the purpose of the red links was to support "A list of one item is not a list" as a baseline (supported by WP:SAL, in my opinion) unless there is a reason why one item should be made into a list article. List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia being "among a group of geographically-related lists" could be a reason to keep the one-element list article, but it was not mentioned in the AfD.
 * WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL gives two examples "Keep Useful." and "Delete: We don't need this here." It goes on to say:
 * Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument."
 * If someone provides a reason why they think that something is or is not useful, then it's not an argument-to-avoid; WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL no longer applies because the person did not just assert that something is or is not useful. In the case of the List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia AfD, BU Rob13's reason was "A list of one item is not a list." Although succinctly expressed, it is more substantive than a bare assertion that the list article is not useful, and I do not think that this is equivalent to providing no reason.
 * On the subject of Cool Hand Luke's closing of WP:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland, I originally interpreted BU Rob13's comments differently, but I now think that you are correct. I also think that BU Rob13 is correct that the keep rationales in that AfD were WP:OSE, especially considering that the list article had only one entry at the time of closing . On the other hand, the article was in the Lists of airlines by country category, so I think that it was a fair close. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 13:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)