Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete. Non-notable website. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning towards (very) Weak Keep - If this site does meet the notability requirements, it just barely clears the bar. While I can't find too much that talks about the site in depth, doing the usual searches brings up a number of books and articles that mention the site as being a source used by them.  And then there is this, a book from the AOPA that does talk directly about the site for a bit.  Not a whole lot to go on, but I'll see what other editors can come up with.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep First of all, thank you for notifying me of this discussion, as I really appreciate not knowing when an article I write is up for deletion. I once wrote this article because a lot of the pages here use the site as a source for the existence of the page. It was successfully PRODed, and I held a discussion with Kelapstick here on it, below the speedy tag that you placed on it a few months ago. The page is linked to on over two hundred pages, and there are links on hundreds more. It also has gained sufficient coverage, as Rorshacma pointed out above. This was something which I used when deciding on how to build the article, so I fail to see why you see this as being a non-notable website. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Uncertain - I share the same thoughts as Rorshacma. Considering that the website houses information about the history of airfields, this may suggest notability but I haven't found any significant sources, with most of them being references to the website. Google News provided small mentions here, here (third from the top), here, here (first from the top) and here. Google Books provided results from books using the website as a reference. Additionally, I believe the article will always be a stub as the only achievements would be awards, and yet, the website hasn't achieved any. With this to mind, I lean towards keep (there are far worse articles than this). SwisterTwister   talk  20:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Found some references that establish notability . I guess this is enough to establish notability.-Wikishagnik (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikigeekery aside, there aren't a ton of real historical references about the small airfields; most places consider the airfields a nuisance unfortunately and so they are disappearing steadily. Also there is little web presence containing information about the important "hidden" parts of aviation like types of navigational aids used over the years such as optical beacons, non directional beacons, A-N radio ranges, OMEGA or on the historical aspects of air traffic control and weather services. Aviation has changed a lot in the time it has existed and we are losing much of the detail about that history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.242 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)