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. WjBscribe 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in Oceania[edit]

List of largest airlines in Oceania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. Refer to Talk:List of largest airlines in Oceania for examples of how some airlines are missing completely from this 'ranking', and as they are missing this fails WP:OR. Note also the figure for Qantas says 219 but the source (which I placed) says 129 (this is an ongoing dispute over at Qantas as to whether to place precendence on figures from company PR over independent regulatory authorities). This is one of a series of articles (see See also in the nominated article for more articles which are also in violation of WP:V and WP:OR) Russavia 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is actually my intent to nominate List of largest airlines in Africa, List of largest airlines in Asia, List of largest airlines in Europe, and List of largest airlines in Central America & the Caribbean, as they are all WP:OR. I will not nominate List of largest airlines in North America as the rankings are quite clearly sourced to a reputable source. The other articles are the result of editors racking their brains and going thru a list of airlines and listing them. As per advice oft seen, I am nominating a single article to see the results before doing the others. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So should this article be deleted, are you also going to use WP:OTHERSTUFF to argue for the deletion of the remaining articles? You do not nominate the weakest article in a continous series just to test waters, and then use its outcome to determine your actions on the rest.--Huaiwei 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response No, I will nominate them on an individual basis, although they will use the same points. And of course you are able to nominate one article (to test the waters so to speak), see here quote However, for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group. And yes, others have now been added to Afd. --Russavia 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response If you notice my emphasise in my previous comment: You do not nominate the'weakest article in a continous series just to test waters, and then use its outcome to determine your actions on the rest. The suggestion above works best when you are debating the notability of one article's content, and its result automatically applies to similar contents in other articles. Here, you are nominating an article almost devoid of any referencing for deletion, so are you going to nominate the other similar articles in this series for the same thing, despite them having far better referencing? Please do not take instructions literally, and as valid excuses for being disruptive.--Huaiwei 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, Huaiwei, do you not about WP:CIVIL. I take extreme issue with your continual insinuation of myself being disruptive, and I would ask anyone reading to pass me on some advice on my talk page as to where I can take this, because the insinuations and insults by this user are getting way out of line. Secondly, there is no weakest article (in my opinion), as they are all (those nominated) as weak as one another due to all being in breach of WP:V and WP:OR. --Russavia 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that a statement like "Huaiwei, do you not [know] about WP:CIVIL." accounts to a breach of WP:CIVIL too. Instead of disgressing in a burst of emotive energy, please address the issues being brought up here. You still have not accounted for the fact that you are nominating articles which you are involved in past disputes over. You have not accounted for your failure to take action in closely related articles, even when they were dublicating information with the exact same problem of WP:OR (see [[2]]) If this article is not the weakest in your view, could you offer a better reason for nominating this article as a test bed?--Huaiwei 04:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response This is ridiculous. Firstly, you are reminded to assume good faith, by accusing me of being disruptive is not assuming good faith. Secondly, I have clearly declared my interest in this article. Thirdly, I don't need to take action in closely relation articles as every article in WP needs to stand on its own merits. Fourthly, an explanation needs to be provided as to how the rankings and fleet numbers have been obtained, as it needs be demonstrated that these articles are not original research. --Russavia 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You only have to assume good faith as long as good faith remains evident. If an editor persists in making bad faith or POV edits (or frivolous AfD nominations) then it is perfectly acceptable to suspend the assumption of good faith. I am not saying that this is the case here, but you cannot counter those who disagree with you by saying that they have to assume you are acting in good faith. Harry was a white dog with black spots 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it is a result of it being unsourced, and unverifiable. Explanations need to be provided as to how the rankings were obtained, because it is clearly in violation of WP:OR the way it stands at the moment, as are the other articles referenced above. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if being unsourced, and unverifiable is your sole primary concern, can you explain your failure to nominate all other articles in this series with the same problem? Can you explain why you did not intervene and remove unsourced information in the original World's largest airlines article, where the exact same information was derived from? Why do you only take action now, in the midst of being personally involved in a revert war in the said article?--Huaiwei 01:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I don't believe I am required to nominate any other articles, as this would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument, every article needs to stand on its own merits, and the onus is on others (as far as I am aware) to refute the nomination. --Russavia 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Why should it concern you that mass nomination of those related articles may be considered a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, when WP:V and WP:OR is your primary concern? Further more, individual nomination of those articles is precisely to allow each article to stand on their own merits. Why didnt you nominate all of them individually then? No one categorically states that such a requirent exists. What remains to be answered, is your reasoning behind your actions, which is to nominate just one article, an article you were having a content dispute over.--Huaiwei 08:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no room for WP:OR in WP, and this list is an example of that. Regardless of whether it is part of a larger list or not is neither here nor there, it fails WP:V and WP:OR, and that alone is grounds enough to remove. Particularly as there has been no attempt to reference it since I posted this back in August. --Russavia 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given your expertise on the subject, I am surprised that you have not made an attempt to reference it. I wonder why that is? The information is out there and easily found. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Trust me, I have. I can find no rankings on the net, now I am sure that they may exist in some industry journal somewhere, but no in any journals I have access to unfortunately. --Russavia 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Refs don't have to be on the net. You can reference a printed journal if you can find one, it's authoritative, and there are no other sources. In any event, all the information required can be found here. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, that website is not a reliable source, as it is too restrictive in what it includes. Example, from the talk page of this article actually, their page for Airlines PNG, lists a total of 5 aircraft. Another unreliable source is [3] as again it is too restrictive. The airline website lists 17 aircraft, the WP article lists 12 aircraft, the 2006 JP Airline Fleets lists 15 aircraft. Which source do you use? No matter which one you use, it is going to original research, what is needed is an authoritative source listings ranking these airlines themselves, rather than having WP editors doing WP:OR to compile hopelessly incorrect lists which omit information, misinterpret information, etc, etc. --Russavia 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And WP:V clearly states that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Incorrect lists based on verifiable sources simply dosent constitute WP:OR. That there are unreliable sources out there isnt our concern either, if they are not used as sources here. Other similar articles overwelmingly use official airline websites as their sources of data, or media sources at the bare minimum. The problems you cite are not relevant to this article, or any of those related articles.--Huaiwei 10:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly. original research would be if you went out and counted the planes in the fleets yourself, and built a list around that. The fact that there may be conflicting sources does not negate the article itself. Either find a consensus around the source that is considered the most authoritative, or state that there is conflicting information. Just because you don't like a particular source for whatever reason is no reason not to use it if it is the best that can be found. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment original research can also be creating an article named List of largest airlines in Oceania and basing the contents on the list purely on picking airline names out of a hat and checking websites, and then ordering them from 1 to whatever, without referencing an authoritative source on what actually are the largest airlines of Oceania. --Russavia 13:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that has not been done, what is the most constructive approach? Delete the article, or find the sources that even you admit are out there to back up the article? It is an undeniable fact that there are airlines in Oceania. It is also an undeniable fact that some have larger fleets than others, and that one airline will have the biggest fleet, another the second biggest etc. That information can be found, and a listing of airlines by fleet size is useful. But it is no more original research than say the article on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann which is similarly put together from various sources to make a convincing whole. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The most constructive approach is to delete the article as failing WP:V and WP:OR. IF a reliable source can be found which establishes a list of largest airlines in Oceania without having to resort to original research, then by all means add the article again. Additionally, refer to WP:V#_note-2, which references an email from Jimbo with a subject Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Read that, and read it again in conjunction with WP:V, WP:OR, and to some extent WP:NPOV, and you can plainly see why these articles must go until such time as they can comply with these policies. --Russavia 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Russavia, you are simply getting desperate to justify AfD nominations that are clearly without merit. The lacking information you are so worried about is easily found. If we want to debate the validity of various sources we can do that, but please, you are not the final arbiter of what is and is not a reliable source. By your criteria, any article where there is a dispute on facts would be deleted. That's a lot of articles. The stats are out there. It should be easy for someone with your knowledge of the aviation industry to find them and add them to the article, right? So do that yourself and improve Wikipedia, rather than seeking to delete potentially useful articles. A article does not have to be compiled from a single source, as has been demonstrated to you. You are not seeking the deletion of the World's Largest Airlines article even though it is compiled in exactly the same way. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not getting desparate at all, as the point has been clearly made with the Afd nomination, and there has yet to be any rebuttal to the assertion that the list is original research. It seems that people need to really look at WP:FIVE, as you have just used from WP:ATA a combination of - WP:LOSE, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:USEFUL, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:PROBLEM, without providing a clear explanation as to why it should be kept inline with WP:V and WP:OR. And, I will say yet again, I have not nominated List of largest airlines, as the rankings and figures are referenced to reliable sources, and anyway, your assetion is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. --Russavia 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be greatly amused if even at this juncture, Russavia could still go about proclaiming that no one has rebutted his salient point. I would just like to reiterate to him, that there is a key difference between disagreeing with comments and no comments at all. I believe it is an important virtue in wikipedia to give due respect to those who hold different opinions, before expecting the same from others. Also, I am personally getting a tad tired by this increasingly nasty habit of citing a long string of policies, guidelines and essays, failing to understand key differences between them, and jumbling all of them together to build up justification in taking a certain action, especially when he fails to convince the masses. I wonder if Russavia has heard of WP:IGNORE?--Huaiwei 02:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, it should be noted that Sparrowman is the editor with whom I have had a dispute with on this article. Secondly, it should also be noted that the article as it stands as I write this is now completely unreferenced, as the source given to push the POV of Qantas having 219 aircraft is the source that I provided for 129 aircraft, and that reference is still in the article, thereby it fails verification. Thirdly, the source that this editor wants to use is Qantas PR marketing [4] (which by the way states 213) (they can't even get that number correct!). Fourthly, by allowing that source to stay in this original research article demonstrates precisely why it is original research, as Jetstar which is No.4 on this list, is included in the figures for Qantas which is No.1. It can't be both! --Russavia 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I suspected, the AfD nom is the result of a personal disagreement of one editor with another. As such, the article should stand until the issue can be worked out. Interestingly enough, the source that I suggested, Air Fleet, backs up the claim of 129 aircraft in the QANTAS mainline fleet, but the nominator wants to dismiss that source! This is simply getting silly. Once this AfD is over, we can discuss what are appropriate sources and how to handle things like groups. Then we can find reliable sources, even if they are different ones for each entry, to support the article. But all this talk of "original research" is patent nonsense. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can it be nonsense? Have a look at the article as of 13 July 2007, with an entry for Tiger Airways Australia, a company which at that time did not have an AOC, and hadn't even received its first aircraft. Or how about this? This is what the article looked like from the start. Go thru the diffs and see how funny it is; at the beginning of the article you have Aeropelican with 5. On 11 July, Aeropelican is pushed from the list. Tiger Airways makes an appearance on 13 July with 5. Two months go by and the article gets its first reference, which is then duly reverted back to an unreferenced article. On the same day, the Norfolk Air fleet drops from 10 down to 1, a little revert war with Sparrowman ensues (shameful I know), another editor then changes the Qantas figure to 136 (using main Qantas article as a reference I think I remember), which I then change to 129 to match the referenced source, which is reverted some days later to show 213 (but still with source which states 129). I thought of reverting this information once again, but then I got to thinking, I add an OR tag on 5 September (which was removed), and then it hit me, where is Aeropelican? Norfolk takes out the No.10 spot with 1 aircraft (a rank it still holds to this day according to the article), but Aeropelican is nowhere to be seen. Instead of reverting and getting into a revert war, I nominated it for Afd for the reasons stated a dozen times above; there is no point in getting into a revert war when two major policies are not being followed within the article since creation. Now I will totally misinterpret something to argue for deletion, that being WP:PROBLEM, and the word that stands out there is embarrasment As to the source, Air Fleet, you will have noticed the restrictions that they have in the size of the aircraft that they include in their census, and it so happens that Qantas operates a fleet of aircraft which that site covers, however, for a region such as Oceania with many third-level and small island hopper airlines, Air Fleets would be pointless as using as a reliable source for airlines such as that which I used as an example. And I will also use WP:PROBLEM again, in that the article is not encyclopaedic as it stands, and it won't until such time as a reliable source is used to formulate the 'largest' lists. If you have US$1000 spare, feel free to purchase this and compile the list, however, be careful, as whilst published data can't be copyrighted, the way it is presented can be, which could create a completely different problem --Russavia 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the fear of embarrasment such a critical concern to you, Russavia, for you to highlight it in such a manner in your latest comment?--Huaiwei 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bingo, Harry was a white dog with black spots. Your suspicion mirrors mine exactly. Note a very recent comment Russavia inserted in his latest reversion of Sparrowman980's edit about seven hours ago:
I think his own comment reveals plenty on just what is really happening here.--Huaiwei 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an article for List of airlines in Oceania but List of largest airlines in Oceania. If it were the former, then yes, what you say is correct, but due to it being the latter, this is by no means verifiable as there are no third party, reliable, verifiable sources which indicate that this editor-compiled list of largest airlines in Oceania is the way it is in reality. --Russavia 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this as i have done the work to fix this page.Sparrowman980 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References
  1. ^ [1]
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.
More