Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEMAND Campaign

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEMAND Campaign

Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]. Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport, and the article as it is is very soapboxy. I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport.
The "campaign news" lists all related news articles, some of which cover the campaign directly. Amalthea^Talk 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are IMHO inadequately substantiated and thus the proposal to delete should be rejected.

a) "Local political campaign to improve noise control at East Midlands Airport. There is news coverage about it, e.g. [1]" - the extent cannot be readily quantified, but the vast majority of the local articles appear to have broken URLs and can no longer be easily traced. Some of the key issues precede the timeframe of articles listed. The domain is complex - which includes for example, planning and environmental legislation, and also the consideration of commercial, private and political interests - and cannot be readily distilled by a layperson or newcomer simply perusing news stories.

b) "Nonetheless, there are many campaigns like this, surely at least one per airport" - why should this render the Wikipedia entry as lacking merit ? Using the same argument, why not scrap the individual airport entries and simply have a generalised entry for UK airports ? NB There are also 'pro-airport' campaign groups, which equally warrant an inclusion in Wikipedia.

c) "the article as it is is very soapboxy" - As a constructive suggestion, why not edit the content to remedy this perceived shortcoming ?

d) "I don't even see it important enough for a merge/redirect to East Midlands Airport" - Why isn't it 'important enough' ?

Lemotsjuste, 6 October 2008 (apologies if this response doesn't accord with Wikipedia protocol in any way) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is perfectly fine. However, I'm still not convinced.
To quote the basic inclusion guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here.
I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news". All articles hosted at http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ or http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/ are broken and I couldn't find them elsewhere. Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic.
There are still a number of articles left where the campaign or its chairman is mentioned: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
The ones that come closest to significant coverage are the first four in the Melton Times. All others that I found are basically name drops of the campaign or its spokesperson. Note that I haven't looked at all of them, only those with headlines that looked promising.
Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of all of those I think it should be deleted.
I don't blame other editors for not wanting to take part in this discussion, it's not a very attractive AfD, but hopefully someone finds the time to give a third opinion.
Amalthea^Talk 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Amalthea. I looked through some of the links at http://www.demand.uk.net/campaign-news.asp Most seem to cover the issue rather than DEMAND and do not mention DEMAND by name. Many links and footnotes in the article also cover the issue rather than the organization. As for the organization itself, I too found the coverage available to be insufficient. Most are passing mentions and nothing that I would call in-depth. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also per Amalthea. There arearticles onthe problem, but little to nothing on the group itself. At best, this is a merge as a sentence or so at East Midlands Airport. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the elaboration.

a) "I've looked at a lot more of the articles listed at the "campaign news"... Quite a few aren't covering this particular campaign at all, but rather generic environmental and health issues caused by air traffic" - Agreed.

b) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I don't see that in this case here. - The campaign has received predominantly regional coverage in the print media (mainly Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire newspapers), which qualify as "independent of the subject". Archived editorial stories specifically citing the organisation which have been traced, and which would have also appeared in print as well as on the web, total 44:

www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk ... 13 off www.thisisnottingham.co.uk ... 13 off www.meltontimes.co.uk ... 3 off www.meltonmowbraytoday.co.uk ... 3 off www.loughboroughecho.net ... 1 off www.harboroughtoday.co.uk ... 1 off www.burtonmail.co.uk ... 2 off www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk ... 8 off

The archive is incomplete and so this probably understates the actual editorial coverage but 44 serves as a useful order of magnitude.

National print media coverage includes: Free to find out all you want? - Sunday July 24, 2005 The Observer What if it's in your back yard? - Sunday October 29, 2006 The Observer

There has been other coverage nationally, e.g., mentioning the organisation, but not naming it: Focus: New plan revealed for flight-path Britain, The Sunday Times, February 11, 2007

c) "Based on the articles that I've read I am convinced that this local compaign is not notable enough for a standalone article, as it does in no way stand out from the countless petitions, campains and referenda worldwide."

The airport has been described as: "... the second largest international freight hub in the UK (after Heathrow), and the largest for the volume carried on dedicated freight aircraft. NEMA serves as a national express freight hub specialising in the movement of high-value, low-weight items and so serves many growth sectors of the economy including pharmaceuticals ..."

Source: 'A flourishing region: Regional Economic Strategy for the East Midlands 2006-2020', East Midlands Development Agency jointly with the East Midlands Regional Assembly, undated but circa 2006, p.95

Express air freight relies heavily on night-time operations, and according to government data the airport had the highest concentration of night-time flights in the UK:

UK Night Air Transport Movements For 2003 (23:30-06:00 hrs):

Nottingham East Midlands 14,184 Gatwick 13,155 Manchester 9,551 Liverpool 9,447 Stansted 9,046 Luton 6,458 Heathrow 5,969 Edinburgh 5,242 Birmingham 4,592 Glasgow 2,841 Cardiff 1,522

Source: Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, Department for Transport, July 2004 (p.38)

However, it has been claimed in court, and with no apparent refutation by the planning authority, that a major runway extension received planning approval contrary to the environmental assessment requirements of European and national (UK) legislation:

"The proposed ground of challenge is that the DC [district council] breached its obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 ... - the Regulations by which the UK implemented EC Directive 85/337/EEC - by granting the 1994 consent without first considering 'the environmental information' and to that end requiring an environmental statement"

Source: Regina v. North West Leicestershire District Council & EMA ex parte Moses, Court of Appeal, 12th April 2000

Consequently, a night-time noise control scheme formulated by the airport and its customers (primarily express air freight operators) was imposed on the local community by UK national government in 2002. This scheme was considered inadequate and therefore unacceptable by the planning authority and local residents' groups.

Sources: i) "EMA produced its own enhanced noise control scheme, which the main night operators DHL, TNT and UPS, under the aegis of the Association of International Courier and Express Services (AICES), were willing to accept." (2003 Report to Ministers, Letter from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 10 February 2005, ii) Letter to NW Leicestershire District Council from the Aviation Minister, Department for Transport, 18th June 2002

Lemotsjuste, 8 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemotsjuste (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: do you have access to anyone with some specialist knowledge of the domain (UK air transportation), and who doesn't have a conflict of interests, who could review this ?

Lemotsjuste, 9 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.32.104 (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Do not delete -- This seeme a legitimate subject and adequately referenced. The question is whether it should remain as an article (Keep or be merged to become a section in East Midlands airport, perhaps trimmed in length. If merged, it might be better to entitle the (new) section "noise pollution complaints. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.