Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport


 * 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chadwick Airport

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N. The only listings about this airport are the FAA indicator and the airport code. No independent sources means non notable. A good example of a notable airport would be Wichita Mid-Continent Airport. It is well sourced, but can still be improved, and there are multiple independent sources too. Chadwick Airport is a private airport minus the proper sourcing. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a notability guideline for airports besides the WP:N standards? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Not to my knowledge. WP:N applies to everything. To have an article, the proper sources must be provided. Undeath (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bleah, that didn't come out right... Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nature of airports is that verifiable information in reliable sources about every airport exists, but is not always immediately accessible. Local newspapers and radio will have covered the decisions leading up to the construction of the airport and its continuing operation. Every airport is notable, and the fact that this article is a stub does not change that fact. --Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The airport exists, has flights coming out of it and an airport code. Easily meets WP:N.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Eastman. Airports are inherently notable, and the only issue with lack of sources is whether this article is a hoax. If it can be proven to be a hoax (and I'm not being snarky as that has happened before), then this can be speedied under applicable wikipolicy. But if it's got a verifiable code, then that's enough for verify this facility. 23skidoo (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I will explain this as easy as I can. An airport code means nothing other than the fact that it proves the existance of the airport. Flights do fly in and out of them, but only for private pilots/people with permission to use this PRIVATE airport. This is not a public airport, it's private. If it were public, this would be different, but it is not. It fails WP:N because it lacks third party sources. Flights flying in and out of it has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with WP:N. And please quote to me where airports are inherently notable. That is not stated anywhere at all. Note to closing admin - Please review the policy of WP:N and judge if the private airport is notable. You have my opinion. Any article in the english wikipedia must provide reliable third party sources for notability to be established. Undeath (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Why would "private ownership" of an airport (or anything for that matter) automatically exclude it from notability?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Privately owned or not, by law, extensive FAA records alone exist on every operating airport in the US.  Just because there's not FAA hyperlinks in an article doesn't magically mean they don't exist.  Even WP:N's heading makes a case of common sense. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again, it's not got anything to do with the fact that it hs an FAA code. That means nothing to WP:N. That just says that it's an airport. But, it's an airport minus any coverage thus it's non notable. We can't give a blanket notability permission for all airport stubs. Undeath (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My case wasn't just because "there's an FAA code." Government records count as reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a private airport, not a public airport, and I can find no evidence that the owner attempts to market this airport to the general aviation market as a place to take off and land from. (Note that there are many publicly owned airports in the United States which are used for general aviation as opposed to scheduled airline service, but many of those are still notable -- they don't need to have scheduled airline service as Wichita Mid-Continent Airport does. But I don't see evidence that this private airport is notable.) What's more, we don't even seem to have accurate coordinates for this airport. The listed coordinates, 45°37′59.4050″N, 126°10′04.3990″W, appear to be in the Pacific Ocean, about 100 miles west of the Oregon coastline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So Fix It if the coordinates are wrong, that is a content issue not a notability issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. The inaccurate location is not a strong argument. I'm going to rely on the "no evidence of reported operations" argument instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a huge precedent of keeping all airport articles. Government records, published weather patterns, radio call signs--you name it.  Consensus would have to change, and I don't see any reason to think that it has.  The folks at WikiProject Aviation have done a great job at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 11:23, July 30, 2008
 * Government records don't count for anything in reliable sources. If it did, convicts would all have their own pages because the government has information on them. And to the above keep, a huge precedent to keep all airport articles only seems to apply within the wikiproject. There are no reliable sources given on any of the private airports. A private airport is just that, a privately owned and operated airport used only by the owner and his/her friends. That is non notable. It fail WP:N in every way. I quote WP:N for you now, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The government is NOT secondary source, it is a primary source. The airport is non notable. It is undeniable. Undeath (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm... The WikiProject Airports considered the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Aurnautical Charting Office to be reliable sources. And since it is a private airport, then unquestionably the federal government would indeed be an independent source...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the site (Airport IQ 5010) which we use in many other articles about airports for FAA data, it appears that Chadwick Airport either has no operations or at least doesn't report any operations to the FAA. See and click on "Based Aircraft & Operations", which reports only one plane based there and zero operations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But records indicate it has been around since "before May 1959" or over 49 years which indicates long-term operations. Current use may indeed be very low, but it's long-term presence gives a strong indication of notability.  It's a well-established airstrip.  Small?  Yes.  Private?  Sure.  Low air traffic?  Apparently.  Notable?  As the day is long.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic).  This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport. --Oakshade (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - If we delete this one, I can easily type in airport in the search and 1000s more articles like this one would have to be deleted. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed at the risk of sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think we should review other airports and see if there is a precedent that is supported by consensus... which I believe that there is. Hillside Airport, Abilene Municipal Airport, Strother Field, Blosser Municipal Airport, Cessna Aircraft Field, Clay Center Municipal Airport, Colonel James Jabara Airport, Hamilton Field (Kansas), Lloyd Stearman Field--some of the 42 articles in the category "Kansas Airport Stubs" -- one state, some private, some municipal.  It's worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also check out List of private-use airports in Oregon and let us know...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Broad consensus on WP:Inherent notability of airports . Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment How about a bit of consistency on Wikipedia? Are we agreeing that if: (a) Something exists and (b) a National government recognises it exists; therefore it is notable? If so, all the AFDs we get on here about schools, for example, will automatically fail? Is this the NEW policy (WP:N) for notability being agreed? somehow, I doubt it. Markb (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Statement Here comes a long one so read it carefully. If the government recognizes something, that does not make it notable. The government recognizes that my house is in Goddard, Kansas so that they can tax me etc..., but you don't see my page on wikipedia. Just because there are a few FAA numbers for a private airport does not make it notable. There is no broad consensus of airports being notable. I'm up for finding all non notable airport stubs and nominating them for deletion or merging them with other areas. Also, Jabara Airport is definitely notable. A simple google search would confirm that. (Same for strother, stearman, and cessna aircraft field) You cannot dodge around the opening line of WP:N There are no If's, And's, or But's about it. A private airport is like a private pool. It is only open for to certain people. The ONLY reason it contains a FAA code is for safety reasons. (You don't want planes to collide in mid air). There is no consensus that all airports are notable, and to even try and get that is beyond ridiculous. That would be like saying all buildings are notable because they are proven to be in existence. A lot of buildings are notable, buy the locaally owned convience store would not be. This is the same situation with the private airports. I'm not saying that they cannot be notable, but they must have reliable independent sources. A weather map of the area is not that source, nor is the site with the FAA code. Undeath (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic). This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport." I disagree with this completely. The government and the FAA are not OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC. The source needs to be unrelated to the airport business. I.e. a local newspaper, or a couple listings on other sites describing the airport. This airport does not contain this so it is non notable. Also, that little statement about WP:Inherent notability is also false. That is an essay, not a guideline. IT DOES NOT TRUMP WP:N. WP:N is a guideline, it is what all articles must abide by. This article fails and fails hard. Undeath (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as your house in Goddard, Kansas is not the government (or the FAA - but I think you knew that), Chadwick Airport is not the government or the FAA. The topic of the article is Chadwick Airport, not United States Government or the Federal Aviation Administration, which as you see by the wikilinks and the text of those articles are DIFFERENT TOPICS. (I can't believe I needed to explain that)  WP:RELIABLESOURCES clearly states that sources from key figures of the topic are "primary", not "secondary."   If sources were published by Chadwick Airport Inc. they would be "primary" as Chadwick Airport Inc. is a "key figure of the topic," not the US government or the FAA as they are external entities of Chadwick Airport.   By the way, there is no "MUST" in WP:N.  As you seemed to have missed above, WP:N states in its heading (not buried deep in a a sub-clause) "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Undeath's statements I will address your statements in order (read in a cordial and friendly voice):
 * 1) "If the government recognizes something, that does not make it notable."  Of course.
 * 2) "The government recognizes that my house is in Goddard, Kansas so that they can tax me etc..., but you don't see my page on wikipedia."  If it were, I would nominated for AfD.
 * 3) "Just because there are a few FAA numbers for a private airport does not make it notable." ummm... see next point
 * 4) "There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is.
 * 5) "I'm up for finding all non notable airport stubs and nominating them for deletion or merging them with other areas."  You are certainly welcome to disagree with consensus.  I'd recommend instead you start a discussion at WikiProject Airports and work to clarify/set/re-set guidelines or whatever instead of nominating many articles for deletion.  If you believe consensus should change, that it the place to do it (and maybe you're right).
 * 6) "Also, Jabara Airport is definitely notable. A simple google search would confirm that. (Same for strother, stearman, and cessna aircraft field)" agreed, that's why I used them as an example.
 * 7) "You cannot dodge around the opening line of WP:N There are no If's, And's, or But's about it"  It says, "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article" which is what we're doing here.
 * 8)  "A private airport is like a private pool. It is only open for to certain people."  Not in the slightest.  A private pool isn't registered with the FAA.  A private pool doesn't show up on aviation maps.  A private pool doesn't serve as an emergency landing field for aircraft.  A private pool isn't a designated entry and exit point for the flow of air traffic.  And a private pool does not fall under the auspices of WikiProject Airports.  This type of argument you are making is called Ignoratio elenchi or "Irrelevant conclusion" and is one of the many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  Many other differences exist, including the fact that you shouldn't go swimming in an airport...  But, if you want to start up WikiProject Swimming Pool be my guest.
 * 9) "The ONLY reason it contains a FAA code is for safety reasons. (You don't want planes to collide in mid air)."  Important safety tip, thanks.  Maybe we should make a note of that... because... it... might... be... notable.
 * 10) "There is no consensus that all airports are notable, and to even try and get that is beyond ridiculous."  You already said that several times...  WP:WABBITSEASON recommends avoiding repeating arguments.
 * 11) "That would be like saying all buildings are notable because they are proven to be in existence.  A lot of buildings are notable, buy the locaally owned convience store would not be. This is the same situation with the private airports."  Another fine example of both WP:WABBITSEASON and irrelevant conclusion
 * 12) "I'm not saying that they cannot be notable, but they must have reliable independent sources. A weather map of the area is not that source, nor is the site with the FAA code."  A weather map of the area would be good supplemental material, as is the other information.  Oakshade and other's arguments clearly show that the information does meet the reliable source standards and is an accepted practice--a practice accepted by consensus.
 * 13) ""Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic). This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport." I disagree with this completely. The government and the FAA are not OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC."  Sorry, they are outside the topic.  The federal government and the FAA are not wholly owned subsidiaries of this private airport in question.  They are separate entities.
 * 14) The source needs to be unrelated to the airport business. I.e. a local newspaper, or a couple listings on other sites describing the airport. This airport does not contain this so it is non notable. I believe you are dramatically mis-interpreting the relable sources rule/guideline/whatever. By that guideline, ESPN could not be used as a reliable source for sporting events because, they are after all the "Entertainment and Sports Network" -- your argument doesn't wash.
 * 15) "Also, that little statement about WP:Inherent notability is also false. That is an essay, not a guideline. IT DOES NOT TRUMP WP:N. WP:N is a guideline, it is what all articles must abide by."  Yes, it's an essay--but it's an essay for a reason.  You can read about why this argument shouldn't be used in AFDs at WP:ONLYESSAY, but essentially it states that "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading."
 * 16) "This article fails and fails hard." Sure, if you ignore all that annoying consensus stuff...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't think I'm becoming hateful, I'm not. (I actually enjoy a good argument every now and then) Undeath (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Refutation As I think this now looks like a debate, I will treat it as such.
 * 1) The airport in question is private. As such, it should be subject of multiple third party sources to confirm notability.
 * 2) The government confirming the existence of the airport is not good enough, but it is mearly a safety issue. As you can see with private helipads, this is purely a safety issue.
 * 3) An essay is not a generally accepted guideline. An essay is something someone wrote down one day because he/she thought of a cool idea. Some of the times, other editors vehemently reject it, as I do with "airports being inherently notable".
 * 4) On the topic of inherent notability, there is no where, in either the guideline or the essay, where an airport is even mentioned. (thank you control + f)
 * 5) The government, being used as a reliable source, is not enough. While it is a good tool to prove the existence of the airport, it offers no other meaningful information. There is no press coverage of this facility, other than the government's proof that it does exist. Existence, by itself, is not enough.
 * 6) I would love to see an essay where certain facilities are given a blanket term in notability. There exists no such thing. WP:N is the basis for most, if not all, of the deletions that occur in AfD. It is widely accepted and widely known. The essay is not. It is not widely accepted, nor widely known. If it were, it would not be an essay, but it would be  guideline.
 * 7) Also, my comparison to a private pool was taken out of context. I know a pool is not FAA registered. The only reason a private airport would be registered with the FAA is for safety. If a plane is taking off of a private strip, but no one else knows of it, there is a possibility for an accident. Another reason why the FAA has registered private airports would be for emergency settings. I.e., a plan needs to make a crash landing/emergency landing and the HUB/main landing zone is not within reach. Other than that, there is no coverage of the airport in any source.
 * 8) Proposal If deletion is not the best option, and, in my opinion, a keep is way from the best as well, I propose a merge. Since the airport is so near Banks, Oregon, why not put a section in the article for the airports around it? This could be done with all non notable private landing strips/airports/helipads. This article is non notable. There is no denying that. There is no web coverage. There is no local coverage. The only thing out there is the FAA code, which is done out of safety reasons only.
 * 9) ""There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is." Yeah, that is a double quote. Anyway, I would like to see where this consensus is. Give me the exact link to it. (no, this afd is not it)
 * One last thing The sites presented do not even show a chart for the airport. That means, no one has even mapped out what the thing looks like. Most/all notable airports have their runways mapped out. This one does not. Undeath (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I'll take a swipe at those!
 * 1) The airport in question is private. As such, it should be subject of multiple third party sources to confirm notability. Why? Why should the type of ownership--public or private--have any bearing on how we treat it in Wikipedia?
 * 2) The government confirming the existence of the airport is not good enough, but it is mearly a safety issue. As you can see with private helipads, this is purely a safety issue. Why wouldn't such a safety issue make it noteworthy, as I asserted above?
 * 3) An essay is not a generally accepted guideline. An essay is something someone wrote down one day because he/she thought of a cool idea. Some of the times, other editors vehemently reject it, as I do with "airports being inherently notable". And some essays are used widely across Wikipedia, especially for specialist topics such as this one.
 * 4) On the topic of inherent notability, there is no where, in either the guideline or the essay, where an airport is even mentioned. (thank you control + f) But there also is a significant number of airports (large and small, public and private) claimed by the project.  This repeated use and acceptance is indicative of consensus
 * 5) The government, being used as a reliable source, is not enough. While it is a good tool to prove the existence of the airport, it offers no other meaningful information. There is no press coverage of this facility, other than the government's proof that it does exist. Existence, by itself, is not enough. I don't know, I see a lot of meaningful information on the article--location, elevation, owner, nearest city, runway information, approximation of age, services (or lack of) available, etc.
 * 6) I would love to see an essay where certain facilities are given a blanket term in notability. There exists no such thing. WP:N is the basis for most, if not all, of the deletions that occur in AfD. It is widely accepted and widely known. The essay is not. It is not widely accepted, nor widely known. If it were, it would not be an essay, but it would be guideline. Okay, how about CFB:STADIUM??
 * 7) Also, my comparison to a private pool was taken out of context. I know a pool is not FAA registered. The only reason a private airport would be registered with the FAA is for safety. If a plane is taking off of a private strip, but no one else knows of it, there is a possibility for an accident. Another reason why the FAA has registered private airports would be for emergency settings. I.e., a plan needs to make a crash landing/emergency landing and the HUB/main landing zone is not within reach. Other than that, there is no coverage of the airport in any source. Again, a reason to take note... as in noteworthy.
 * 8) Proposal If deletion is not the best option, and, in my opinion, a keep is way from the best as well, I propose a merge. Since the airport is so near Banks, Oregon, why not put a section in the article for the airports around it? This could be done with all non notable private landing strips/airports/helipads. This article is non notable. There is no denying that. There is no web coverage. There is no local coverage. The only thing out there is the FAA code, which is done out of safety reasons only. ''Well, if you're just asking me I wouldn't want to go with it.  But what I think doesn't matter much--what matters is consensus.  So far. only two editors support deletion and six supporting keeping.  Yes, it's not a "popular vote" but at the same time, it's helpful to look at.  And one of the "elete editors" gives the reason that there are no current operations--to which I would say that at least 49 years of operation provides a long-term notability factor.
 * 9) ""There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is." Yeah, that is a double quote. Anyway, I would like to see where this consensus is. Give me the exact link to it. (no, this afd is not it) Again, I have to go with the List of private-use airports in Oregon for starters and show how the project has continued to support and add articles just like that one.  "It's not what's inside me, but what I do that defines me."--Bruce Wayne
 * 10) Also, please don't think I'm becoming hateful, I'm not. (I actually enjoy a good argument every now and then) no problem.  It's just good to make sure that issues such as these are about the issue, the topic--and not the person.  It always pays to be nice.

Yet, I have to add that I chafe at the suggestion that it is notable. this raises the question, if it's so notable, why are there nothing but government documents on the topic? By the same standard, every building (who files public paperwork with the government), and even every voter (who has an official, verifiable file) should have an entry. If the local paper has not mentioned the airport, I don't even see it having local interest and the only reason to have it appears to be as a repository / a place to link to for all airports (see WP:NOTREPOSITORY . Pdbailey (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) One last thing The sites presented do not even show a chart for the airport. That means, no one has even mapped out what the thing looks like. Most/all notable airports have their runways mapped out. This one does not Actually, all it means is that those sites don't have charts, it does not mean that no one has charted it.  Offline sources are perfectly valid, and there is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would be reluctant to support a guideline that all airports are notable. Maybe all airports which currently have or formerly had passenger air carrier service, and maybe even all airports which currently have or formerly had regular general aviation operations. (Preferably there should be sources to indicate evidence of such use; I would accept the 5010 as such evidence as long as it actually did indicate such operations.) But this airport, which has 49 years of existence, has not actually had evidence presented to indicate that any planes have taken off or landed there in recent years, or that they did so in the past; it is apparently unattended and no services are provided there. Just looking at the satellite image of the airport (now that its coordinates have been corrected), I don't see anything that looks like a runway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a grass landing strip in someone's backyard, the aerial photos still show that. There are literally thousands of unattended grass landing strips in the State of Alaska alone and an uncountable number worldwide. Many airports are notable, but this is an unattended grass landing strip that I'd have trouble calling an airport. Someone named Chadwick living in or near Banks Oregon owns a Cessna 180, N2879K. A number of other planes are registered in Banks, OR as well. I'd say its not a coincidence that a person with that name owns an airplane registered in the same county. I'd bet at least one airplane uses it, but I don't think that means it's notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no coverage of this airport to establish notability. Existence is not sufficient for coverage.  All of the references are directory entries. --  Whpq (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there's not a lot of meat in this article, imagine a WP that had this level or better of information on every airport. That would be an uber-encyclopedia.  I do think that UnDeath's admonition that: Government records don't count for anything in reliable sources. is really a pretty scary thought.  I am sure both sides of the global warming debate would really freak out if they couldn't use those phoney government studies to make their case.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd comment - This article article talks about the identifier number. Basicly, all airports regardless of if its used or not has to have an identifier code, so such codes may not indicate notability. Note:You don`t have to trust me on this as the article mentioned isn't cited. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * List only Basically delete.  I don't really know that there's that much to say about the place other than that it exists.  Other than a list entry, what is there to say about the place?  From the standpoint of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd have the same opinion for most of the things on the list.  I think the best comparison is your average city street: it is mentioned in many government publications, the public knows it exists, but aside from places like Bourbon Street, your average patch-of-pavement just doesn't merit an encyclopedia article.  SDY (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has now been sourced. It easily meets standards.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is verififable through reliable sources. It's pointless to discuss notability with no aiport specific notability guidleine. One of the worst aspects of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide is where notability rules should be established before this action is taken. I would argue for deletion of articles like Willamette Falls Community Hospital Heliport as something that could be well served in a list, but perhaps not on its own page. Unfortunately, there has been no action on the aviation page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide page since I requested it about three weeks ago.


 * 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.