Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways


 * 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. I was a little surprised by the outcome here but hey, learn something new every day! There was some discussion below about potentially merging this; it sort of petered out and I don't think there's vast agreement on that front, but it doesn't seem there's great opposition to it. That is to say, there's consensus that this material should be kept, so this is a "keep" close, but there may perhaps be value in having further conversation on exactly where it is kept. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just WP:LISTCRUFT. Mostly unsourced and generally an unencyclopedic topic Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I was going to suggest a merge with List of airports in Poland, but between this article, List of airports in Poland with paved runways and List of highway strips in Poland, it would just be too unwieldy to have them all in one article. The current arrangement is fine and this is a valid subtopic given the size. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment While normally I would agree with Smartyllama that it could be kept as a valid split, I'm rather concerned about the complete lack of sources and notability for nearly all of the information presented here. The vast majority of these airports appear to be extremely unnotable, and there are absolutely no sources showing where the details of each one are coming from, giving the list a complete lack of WP:Verifiability. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - With the sources and comments below, I can support a Keep, as long as the list is only restricted to airports with ICAO codes, as suggested by Spinningspark. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Looked at several of these on Google Maps, and I'm not convinced that a list of strips of grass where a very small airplane could land is a notable topic, even if this had even a single source. Agree that this is listcruft, and List of highway strips in Poland could go too - pilots aren't using Wikipedia to see where they could land on the highway in an emergency. Reywas92Talk 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article already makes it clear that this is not a list of strips of grass where a very small airplane could land: "Since almost any approved flat area can be assigned as landing area or airfield, the following list is limited to unpaved airfields with a distinct purpose and functionality". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, so long as it is restricted to "official" airports with ICAO codes. While the article might be unsourced, it is not unsourceable.  this page provides a list, and several book sources (eg ) give the total number (although without listing them). SpinningSpark 23:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At first glace that source looks self-published. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an official list of currently operating airports from the Polish Civil Aviation Authority. Those with unpaved runways are marked "bez nawierzchni sztucznej" in the "Rodzaj nawierzchni" column. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've now reliably sourced half of the entries in this list, but haven't finished yet, and won't finish before the seven-day discussion period is complete because there are over 70 entries. We should certainly list the airports in Poland, and any other countries, and if a single list would be too unwieldy this is a good way to split it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I don't think it would be unwieldy. There's no reason to have a list of airports subcategorised by paved runway status. I can't see any examples of these lists for other countries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you would accept a merge as an outcome? SpinningSpark 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, merging with List of airports in Poland with paved runways. And that each entry is sourced and limited to ICAO airports. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should any such list be limited to ICAO airports, rather than to verifiable ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because if it doesn't have an airport code it's not really an airport; just a flat piece of ground you might be able to land a plane on. For the record, I also support a merge if someone is willing to carry it out.  I'm at WP:RETAIN on this one and not fussed where the information goes. Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, your first sentence is not true. In sourcing this I have so far only targeted the airports with ICAO codes listed, but in the process I found reliable sources confirming that Chrcynno and Oława-Stanowice and Przasnysz are, of have been, proper airports or airfields rather than flat pieces of ground you might be able to land a plane on, even though they don't have ICAO codes. I'm also not fussed by whether these should be listed in a separate article or a combined list, but deletion should be out of the question. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps those can be included if they are notable enough to have their own article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.