The deletionists have won

[The Blue Newt]

In my opinion, almost all Wikiprojects are unnecessary at best, and frequently a net negative. Sometimes disruptively so.

Ah, The MILHIST!

How so? Struck me as one of the few places that was mostly centered on producing articles.

[casualdejekyll]

In my opinion, almost all Wikiprojects are unnecessary at best, and frequently a net negative. Sometimes disruptively so.

Ah, The MILHIST!

How so? Struck me as one of the few places that was mostly centered on producing articles.

Frankly, MILHIST is by far and away the most productive WikiProject... 90% of the other ones are entirely inactive, and the remaining few tend to consist of 5-to-10 diehards that keep it chugging along. WikiProjects in general look to be going the way of the Portal: namespace (Did you know that zombie STILL EXISTS? Because I DIDN'T.) and the dodo bird, but this one in particular actually seems to be working out just fine.

[Hemiauchenia]

It is true that there are a lot of basically dead and inactive Wikiprojects, though of the projects that I personally participate in WP:TOL (T-H-L) and WP:PALEO (T-H-L) are reasonably active (though much of the discussion on the latter takes place on a Discord server). WP:PALEOART (T-H-L) and WP:DINOART (T-H-L) are also pretty active and serve useful functions of not allowing objectively terrible and inaccurate prehistoric art to flood the encyclopedia.

[AndyTheGrump]

It is true that there are a lot of basically dead and inactive Wikiprojects, though of the projects that I personally participate in WP:TOL (T-H-L) and WP:PALEO (T-H-L) are reasonably active (though much of the discussion on the latter takes place on a Discord server). WP:PALEOART (T-H-L) and WP:DINOART (T-H-L) are also pretty active and serve useful functions of not allowing objectively terrible and inaccurate prehistoric art to flood the encyclopedia.

Yeah, you're probably right. Some Wikiprojects just work away in the background, without drama. Others seem to act as nothing but drama-factories and forums for canvassing.

[ArmasRebane]

In my opinion, almost all Wikiprojects are unnecessary at best, and frequently a net negative. Sometimes disruptively so.

Ah, The MILHIST!

How so? Struck me as one of the few places that was mostly centered on producing articles.

Frankly, MILHIST is by far and away the most productive WikiProject... 90% of the other ones are entirely inactive, and the remaining few tend to consist of 5-to-10 diehards that keep it chugging along. WikiProjects in general look to be going the way of the Portal: namespace (Did you know that zombie STILL EXISTS? Because I DIDN'T.) and the dodo bird, but this one in particular actually seems to be working out just fine.

Eh, WikiProjects have a function in project-wide organization. That many are moribund is just a function of people trying to create Wikiprojects without requisite interest or more than a handful of people, but beyond that they're still useful for quality assessment, tracking, etc even if only one person is plugging away at them. The comparison to Portals doesn't make sense, because A) Portals are supposed to be reader-facing and reader-serving, and B) they definitely don't actually reach any readers aside from the main page ones.

[Beeblebrox]

I have long-believed that Wikipedia's coverage of aviation goes too far. So I am pretty pleased at the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations (T-H-L).
120 lists of airline destinations articles deleted. It took a long time to get to this point, even though I actually opened a discussion, and got a consensus that Wikipedia should not have this type of article in 2018 [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ions?[link]. I made the mistake of thinking that I could actually act on that consensus and started deleting the entire category of articles. There was some yelling, threats of a block, etc, the deletions were undone, and I was told basically that the clear consensus we had was invalid and we had to go through AFD. I didn't like that so I walked away from it. Good times, but the incident was cited in this nomination.

These articles are simply stupid to even have. Nobody is getting any information from them that they would't rather get from the airline's own website since that is probably more up-to-date and you can actually book a flight there. The issue, as I've always seen it, is that some aviation fans basically argue that anything to do with anything that flies is notable, and that's that. They would never put it that baldly of course, but that's what it boils down to.

[AndyTheGrump]

I have long-believed that Wikipedia's coverage of aviation goes too far. So I am pretty pleased at the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations (T-H-L).
120 lists of airline destinations articles deleted. It took a long time to get to this point, even though I actually opened a discussion, and got a consensus that Wikipedia should not have this type of article in 2018 [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ions?[link]. I made the mistake of thinking that I could actually act on that consensus and started deleting the entire category of articles. There was some yelling, threats of a block, etc, the deletions were undone, and I was told basically that the clear consensus we had was invalid and we had to go through AFD. I didn't like that so I walked away from it. Good times, but the incident was cited in this nomination.

These articles are simply stupid to even have. Nobody is getting any information from them that they would't rather get from the airline's own website since that is probably more up-to-date and you can actually book a flight there. The issue, as I've always seen it, is that some aviation fans basically argue that anything to do with anything that flies is notable, and that's that. They would never put it that baldly of course, but that's what it boils down to.

I'm not sure I'd describe the people responsible for such vacuous listcruft as 'aviation fans'. They are fans of compiling arbitrary data for the sake of it, and aviation just happens to be a convenient source. See also the list of obscure anime series episodes, single-source one-line 'articles' on Polish settlements, etc, etc, etc...

Possibly the solution to all this listcruft is to create a special 'write only' section in article space: anyone can edit it, but it doesn't appear in searches so we don't inflict it on readers...

[owl be it]

I have long-believed that Wikipedia's coverage of aviation goes too far. So I am pretty pleased at the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations (T-H-L).
120 lists of airline destinations articles deleted. It took a long time to get to this point, even though I actually opened a discussion, and got a consensus that Wikipedia should not have this type of article in 2018 [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ions?[link]. I made the mistake of thinking that I could actually act on that consensus and started deleting the entire category of articles. There was some yelling, threats of a block, etc, the deletions were undone, and I was told basically that the clear consensus we had was invalid and we had to go through AFD. I didn't like that so I walked away from it. Good times, but the incident was cited in this nomination.

These articles are simply stupid to even have. Nobody is getting any information from them that they would't rather get from the airline's own website since that is probably more up-to-date and you can actually book a flight there. The issue, as I've always seen it, is that some aviation fans basically argue that anything to do with anything that flies is notable, and that's that. They would never put it that baldly of course, but that's what it boils down to.

I'm not sure I'd describe the people responsible for such vacuous listcruft as 'aviation fans'. They are fans of compiling arbitrary data for the sake of it, and aviation just happens to be a convenient source. See also the list of obscure anime series episodes, single-source one-line 'articles' on Polish settlements, etc, etc, etc...

Possibly the solution to all this listcruft is to create a special 'write only' section in article space: anyone can edit it, but it doesn't appear in searches so we don't inflict it on readers...

Hobbies you don't enjoy?

[The Blue Newt]

Possibly the solution to all this listcruft is to create a special 'write only' section in article space: anyone can edit it, but it doesn't appear in searches so we don't inflict it on readers...

Joking aside, redefining it as an overview compilation of source material would let it be placed in wikisource, where it could be taken into some dark alcove and handed over to the Mutes.

[ArmasRebane]

I have long-believed that Wikipedia's coverage of aviation goes too far. So I am pretty pleased at the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations (T-H-L).
120 lists of airline destinations articles deleted. It took a long time to get to this point, even though I actually opened a discussion, and got a consensus that Wikipedia should not have this type of article in 2018 [link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ions?[link]. I made the mistake of thinking that I could actually act on that consensus and started deleting the entire category of articles. There was some yelling, threats of a block, etc, the deletions were undone, and I was told basically that the clear consensus we had was invalid and we had to go through AFD. I didn't like that so I walked away from it. Good times, but the incident was cited in this nomination.

These articles are simply stupid to even have. Nobody is getting any information from them that they would't rather get from the airline's own website since that is probably more up-to-date and you can actually book a flight there. The issue, as I've always seen it, is that some aviation fans basically argue that anything to do with anything that flies is notable, and that's that. They would never put it that baldly of course, but that's what it boils down to.

I'm not sure I'd describe the people responsible for such vacuous listcruft as 'aviation fans'. They are fans of compiling arbitrary data for the sake of it, and aviation just happens to be a convenient source. See also the list of obscure anime series episodes, single-source one-line 'articles' on Polish settlements, etc, etc, etc...

Possibly the solution to all this listcruft is to create a special 'write only' section in article space: anyone can edit it, but it doesn't appear in searches so we don't inflict it on readers...

Yeah, it seems like any hobby or topic gathers its segment of people who are only interested in the useless compendium of knowledge stuff. That they're "fans" is kind of irrelevant. Some people get jobs doing it (like whoever that random guy is at baseball games who tells me "Person Foo has a batting average of .299 when the moon is in its waxing phase and he's eaten a sandwich that day" like it's something anyone should know or care about) and other people just fill up wikipedias on a volunteer basis.

Sort of in line with this observation, though, is the fact that Lists essentially allow a lot of these people to flourish on Wikipedia as opposed to rightfully getting pointed out that it's dumb and an encyclopedia probably doesn't need a list of people, or lists of lists of lists, etc. The Nippon Air and associated pages should have been gone a long time ago, but people stop critically thinking about anything as soon as a "List of" gets appended.

[rnu]

Maybe someone should make a list of pointless lists. Let's see people figure out whether it should be deleted or not.

[Jip Orlando]

I used to be more active patrolling the PendingChanges list and I remember the List of Foo Destinations were hard to verify. Airlines change these frequently, esp. international airlines. One that stuck out to me was List of Aer Lingus destinations (T-H-L). I fail to see how these lists fail NOTDIRECTORY and their general utility. Who goes to Wikipedia to see if xys flies to qrs? You can find that on xys's website.

[redbaron]

Maybe someone should make a list of pointless lists. Let's see people figure out whether it should be deleted or not.

Well, there's List of lists of covered bridges (T-H-L) and List of lists of hotels (T-H-L), among other lists of lists... and of course, we can't forget the List of lists of lists (T-H-L)!

Also, I agree that keeping lists of airline destinations in Wikipedia is impractical... but don't tell anyone lest I be forced to surrender my avgeek card

[rnu]

and of course, we can't forget the List of lists of lists (T-H-L)!

That one is getting a bit long. Maybe it should be broken up into multiple lists of lists of lists.

[Beeblebrox]

I first ran into this with aviation specifically at an AFD years ago about an Alaskan "airline" that had, I believe, three small Cessnas. Found it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsek Air Service (T-H-L). That was argued into a "no consensus" result via the magic of making up new criteria on the fly, in this case "they got an essential air service (T-H-L) contract and are therefore notable. This is a grant the feds give out to get mail delivered to remote villages. It does not confer notability, but I remember seeing it at a number of AFDs on tiny bush airlines. I don't think that argument has worked since then, I've also seen the argument that somehow if an otherwise not-notable airline operates scheduled flights as opposed to charters, that adds notability, although, again, haven't seen that be an effective defense in quite a while.

[AndyTheGrump]

I'm going to compile a List of things not included in any list (T-H-L). When I'm done, I expect the universe to collapse in on itself, thereby putting us all out of our misery.

[rnu]

I'm going to compile a List of things not included in any list (T-H-L). When I'm done, I expect the universe to collapse in on itself, thereby putting us all out of our misery.

A Mr. Russell would like to have a word with you.

(Also, contradictions lead to explosions, not implosions. See Principle of explosion (T-H-L))

[Ron Lybonly]

I like lists.

Lists, properly used, are a good alternative to a zillion little stubs. “List of towns in Foo Province” with 100 entries takes the place of 100 little Dr. Blofeld stubs. You watch and maintain one article, not 100. With several columns in a table, you can have just as much content (coordinates, population, etc.).

Reduces maintenance

[eppur si muove]

A Mr. Russell would like to have a word with you.

Bertrand was never Mr. Russell. He was The Honourable Bertrand Russell for much of his life and then became The Earl Russell in his late 50s. He was Prisoner 2917 Russell in 1916 and Prisoner 8078 Russell in 1961.

[rnu]

A Mr. Russell would like to have a word with you.

Bertrand was never Mr. Russell. He was The Honourable Bertrand Russell for much of his life and then became The Earl Russell in his late 50s. He was Prisoner 2917 Russell in 1916 and Prisoner 8078 Russell in 1961.

[Beeblebrox]

I like lists.

Lists, properly used, are a good alternative to a zillion little stubs. “List of towns in Foo Province” with 100 entries takes the place of 100 little Dr. Blofeld stubs. You watch and maintain one article, not 100. With several columns in a table, you can have just as much content (coordinates, population, etc.).

Reduces maintenance

I agree that list articles like that serve a good purpose in that they consolidate what would otherwise be a pile of sub-stubs. Not all list articles are a bad thing. I've been working on a very long-term project (that's basically been on pause until ArbCom doesn't take up so much of my wiki-time) to get at least one sentence of content into an article somewhere based on each entry at List of Alaska state parks (T-H-L), as most of them do not warrant a full article, but can be covered briefly in already existing articles about the region the park is in.

This is a very different thing than listing every time someone sneezes in a movie about airplanes or whatever other random-intersection cruft. We used to see that term a lot more, I think the project has actually gotten rid of a lot of the worst cruft, but there is still clearly a lot of "listcruft".

[ScotFinnRadish]

There's also a lot of list of shitty shit that people maintain like scoreboards with no thought to notability. The list of serial rapists is an example of that.

[Hemiauchenia]

There's also a lot of list of shitty shit that people maintain like scoreboards with no thought to notability. The list of serial rapists is an example of that.

At least if you take those sorts of lists to AfD they sometimes get deleted: e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers
(T-H-L)

[Beeblebrox]

There's also a lot of list of shitty shit that people maintain like scoreboards with no thought to notability. The list of serial rapists is an example of that.

I split the "in fiction" section off from the artlce list of impostors (T-H-L), then realized it was so stupid we shouldn't have it at all, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional impostors (T-H-L) dealt with that, but even after that one person kept arguing for just putting content back into the article about actual, real imposters.

[ScotFinnRadish]

It went through an AfD, which was keep. The consensus there was to have only notable examples in the list. Luckily it didn't fill up with piles of true crime cruft.

[AndyTheGrump]

There's also a lot of list of shitty shit that people maintain like scoreboards with no thought to notability. The list of serial rapists is an example of that.

No notability, plus added WP:BLP violations because minor details like distinguishing between allegations and convictions don't matter for listcrufters...

[The Garbage Scow]

I just wanted to say it has been nearly three years and Travis' statement that "The deletionists have won" is no more true today than it was in 2020.

[Ming]

I like lists.

Lists, properly used, are a good alternative to a zillion little stubs. “List of towns in Foo Province” with 100 entries takes the place of 100 little Dr. Blofeld stubs. You watch and maintain one article, not 100. With several columns in a table, you can have just as much content (coordinates, population, etc.).

Reduces maintenance

Well, not really. It just makes people not bother. Lists of towns in county/township/province/etc. are just as much of a cleanup problem as individual articles, once the entries are made.

[casualdejekyll]

I just wanted to say it has been nearly three years and Travis' statement that "The deletionists have won" is no more true today than it was in 2020.

Hey, we got a few LugStubs. That was a pretty big deletionist victory. So it's like, 5% true, instead of like 0% true.

[rnu]

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

[FelinaLavandula]

“Readers love having to scroll past a massive table with every place an airplane has ever flown in every single airport article!! It’s encyclopedic information!! I promise!!”

[orangepi]

The airport destination tables actually are perfect the way they are. They are useful, especially because of the revision history. The current data is sourced, and changes to flight destinations are normally covered in local and regional newspapers.

But apparently a few schmucks and Hasten-The-Day types want to delete it, again, so we are going to have another nauseating discussion, where a few of those schmucks will suggest that "inaccurate prose summaries of the destinations" are better than easily-verified-to-be-accurate tables at the bottom of the article.

[Giraffe Stapler]

The airport destination tables actually are perfect the way they are. They are useful, especially because of the revision history. The current data is sourced, and changes to flight destinations are normally covered in local and regional newspapers.

But apparently a few schmucks and Hasten-The-Day types want to delete it, again, so we are going to have another nauseating discussion, where a few of those schmucks will suggest that "inaccurate prose summaries of the destinations" are better than easily-verified-to-be-accurate tables at the bottom of the article.

Speaking on behalf of the schmucks, I think the hasten-the-day believers would be happy for these to remain. The less serious that Wikipedia looks, the better.

[orangepi]

The airport destination tables actually are perfect the way they are. They are useful, especially because of the revision history. The current data is sourced, and changes to flight destinations are normally covered in local and regional newspapers.

But apparently a few schmucks and Hasten-The-Day types want to delete it, again, so we are going to have another nauseating discussion, where a few of those schmucks will suggest that "inaccurate prose summaries of the destinations" are better than easily-verified-to-be-accurate tables at the bottom of the article.

Speaking on behalf of the schmucks, I think the hasten-the-day believers would be happy for these to remain. The less serious that Wikipedia looks, the better.

Compared to almost any random article, are these "less serious" looking? My first four pulls:

• At Kerry Ketter (T-H-L), are the baseball-card style stats serious?
• At Planodema multilineata (T-H-L) ... is "almost no content at all" really serious?
• At United Sons and Daughters of Charity Lodge Hall (T-H-L) ... well, that's just NRHP cruft.
• At Ryan Chiaverini (T-H-L) ...

I think I've proved my point.

[rnu]

Compared to almost any random article, are these "less serious" looking? My first four pulls:

• At Kerry Ketter (T-H-L), are the baseball-card style stats serious?
• At Planodema multilineata (T-H-L) ... is "almost no content at all" really serious?
• At United Sons and Daughters of Charity Lodge Hall (T-H-L) ... well, that's just NRHP cruft.
• At Ryan Chiaverini (T-H-L) ...

I think I've proved my point.

If your point is that "crap" is a very relative term when it comes to Wikipedia articles, yes. Although I think everyone here already knew that.

[FelinaLavandula]

I admit I’m biased here, but I do think that every species stub that just says “Species belongs to genus and was described in year by name” is worth at least a hundred times more effort to expand than it takes to maintain a single airport destination table.

[ArmasRebane]

The airport destination tables actually are perfect the way they are. They are useful, especially because of the revision history. The current data is sourced, and changes to flight destinations are normally covered in local and regional newspapers.

But apparently a few schmucks and Hasten-The-Day types want to delete it, again, so we are going to have another nauseating discussion, where a few of those schmucks will suggest that "inaccurate prose summaries of the destinations" are better than easily-verified-to-be-accurate tables at the bottom of the article.

Speaking on behalf of the schmucks, I think the hasten-the-day believers would be happy for these to remain. The less serious that Wikipedia looks, the better.

Compared to almost any random article, are these "less serious" looking? My first four pulls:

• At Kerry Ketter (T-H-L), are the baseball-card style stats serious?
• At Planodema multilineata (T-H-L) ... is "almost no content at all" really serious?
• At United Sons and Daughters of Charity Lodge Hall (T-H-L) ... well, that's just NRHP cruft.
• At Ryan Chiaverini (T-H-L) ...

I think I've proved my point.

Mostly it's proved you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes cruft if you're going to argue stuff that's placed on the National Register is less worthy of encyclopedic inclusion than exhaustive lists of where airlines at every airport go.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Compared to almost any random article, are these "less serious" looking? My first four pulls:

• At Kerry Ketter (T-H-L), are the baseball-card style stats serious?
• At Planodema multilineata (T-H-L) ... is "almost no content at all" really serious?
• At United Sons and Daughters of Charity Lodge Hall (T-H-L) ... well, that's just NRHP cruft.
• At Ryan Chiaverini (T-H-L) ...

I think I've proved my point.

It's not quite as funny as the other day when Randy from Boise said American law is the best, but it's pretty good.

[orangepi]

Elsewhere at the Village Pump, we have a cabal arguing that articles on Russian census divisions which are probably just one family's house have to be kept because there might be a rich oral history for some of them that might be discovered in the future.

I can't deal with all these idiots at once.

[rnu]

Elsewhere at the Village Pump, we have a cabal arguing that articles on Russian census divisions which are probably just one family's house have to be kept because there might be a rich oral history for some of them that might be discovered in the future.

I can't deal with all these idiots at once.

See viewtopic.php?f=8&t=13128

[Hemiauchenia]

The specficic discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Changes_to_GEOLAND (T-H-L). If people are genuinely arguing for having articles on single (non-notable) houses, then that's dumb.

[Hemiauchenia]

I have managed to find the fabled Novino (T-H-L) (with a supposed population of 1) mentioned in the discussion https://www.google.com/maps/place/Novin ... ?entry=ttu There's maybe only two buildings, it otherwise just looks like a green field. The supposed roads leading to it are indistinguishable from the surrounding terrain.

Edit: I've managed to find an image of one of the buildings:

https://www.komandirovka.ru/cities/novino/

[Beeblebrox]

That looks like some shit you'd find off the road system here in Alaska, almost certainly inhabited by someone who has zero desire to have an article about their house in an encyclopedia.

I wonder if it would be possible to create an article on Fizzleville, Ohio, which I have been to, despite the fact that it doesn't exist.

link

[Giraffe Stapler]

I have managed to find the fabled Novino (T-H-L) (with a supposed population of 1) mentioned in the discussion https://www.google.com/maps/place/Novin ... ?entry=ttu There's maybe only two buildings, it otherwise just looks like a green field. The supposed roads leading to it are indistinguishable from the surrounding terrain.

Google says it belongs to some guy named Vladimir Oblast...

[Hemiauchenia]

That looks like some shit you'd find off the road system here in Alaska, almost certainly inhabited by someone who has zero desire to have an article about their house in an encyclopedia.

Ruwiki says according to the Russian census, the population of the settlement changed from 1 in 2010 to 0 in in 2021. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0 ... %BE%D0%BD) , so it's essentially nothing more than an abandoned shack now. Apparently around 90 people lived there in 1926, but if that's true, the houses surrounding the current structures must have been completely obliterated.

[Ming]

That looks like some shit you'd find off the road system here in Alaska, almost certainly inhabited by someone who has zero desire to have an article about their house in an encyclopedia.

We found endless supplies of this kind of stuff in the big US clean up, plus some hilariously bad calls on the part of the USGS people compiling GNIS. It's impressive how dogged the legalistic focus on "populated, legally recognized places" is, as if we were required to include all such places, even when it is shown that there is nothing to them.

What particularly strikes Ming about the Russian situation is that any examination at all tends to suggest a bunch of tzarist er, soviet er, Russian bureaucrats issuing edicts without the slightest knowledge of or interest in the reality out in the field. You gotta love 2779 km (T-H-L) (that is not a typo) which is just a pair of station platforms on the outskirts of an actual town. And here's what the Russian WP has to say about the history of 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast (T-H-L) (Bing translated):

In 1947, an order was issued by the head of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Railway dated 23.12.1947 N 229 / N "On the renaming of stations of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Railway" [1].

According to this order, on January 1, 1948, a territorial unit was formed called the 17th km junction as part of the Sinegorsk Settlement Council of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk District of the Sakhalin Region of the RSFSR [1].

By the decree of the Administration of the Sakhalin Oblast of April 26, 2004, the station of the 17th km as a settlement was transformed into the village of the same name [6].

[Beeblebrox]

I don't recall if I've mentioned this here before, but check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawing, Alaska (T-H-L). The result was keep, despite the fact that nobody even knew exactly where this was, it is not in GNIS, but it was, at one time, a "populated place". This was despite the fact that, as I argued at the time, the entire populated place was also the NHRP site Alaska Nellie's Homestead (T-H-L), which we already had a perfectly good article on. I eventually did find the place myself when I happened to be over in that area and passed "Lawing Drive" and knew that had to be it.

I eventually got away with redirecting it to the NRHP article after finding it and establishing that it is in an area now known as Crown Point, Alaska (T-H-L).

[The Blue Newt]

I don't recall if I've mentioned this here before, but check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawing, Alaska (T-H-L).

That was sad.

Such a lot of words around Wiki, and so few brains.

[eppur si muove]

What particularly strikes Ming about the Russian situation is that any examination at all tends to suggest a bunch of tzarist er, soviet er, Russian bureaucrats issuing edicts without the slightest knowledge of or interest in the reality out in the field...

It all sounds like the geographic equivalent of Lieutenant Kijé (T-H-L)

[Ming]

Mostly it's proved you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes cruft if you're going to argue stuff that's placed on the National Register is less worthy of encyclopedic inclusion than exhaustive lists of where airlines at every airport go.

NRHP articles almost never show up at AfD because the submission form requires a statement of "significance", which is to say "explain why this is notable enough to list." Notability battles usually involve a guideline that skips this step so that people can churn out articles on items that really nobody sane could care about and, as it happens, the authors don't really have to bother to verify the truth about.