Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowlark 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Meadowlark Airport

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

Almost exclusively WP:OR/unsourced article on small, defunct airport. Only sourced information in the article currently is about the post-airport use of the site. find turns up only sparse information that does not rise to the level of "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe this article should be retained and I am willing to research the recently added fact tags.  However, it will take longer than a week.  This will require reliable sources not necessarily available on the Internet (i.e., books in the city and university library).  I would appreciate being given the time to do the research before the article is deleted. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some sources:, 2000+ word LA times article on the airport and its closing, 640 word article on financial issues in the 1960s, etc. The LA Times in particular seems to have written about the travails of this airport quite a bit over the years, and I'm talking operational stuff, not just urban planning articles about use of the site after the airport closed. Hopefully Alanraywiki or someone else will improve the article with these and other sources, but just showing they exist is enough for me to vote to keep. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article verifiably demonstrates sufficient notability. It could do with some continued development, but that is no reason for deletion. I42 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Though citations are needed, this is a reasonably well written article, even if it was only a minor airport. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It was an 80 acre site which operated for over 40 years. It's not like someone just landed a helicopter in a field a couple of times.  Nick mallory (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems reasonably notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - has reliable sources. Airports, no matter how small, are generally have at least some sources, and therefore are notable. Sebwite (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.