Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middenmeer Aerodrome


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Middenmeer Aerodrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. This would be better suited to Middenmeer, which is already very limited and devotes a good deal of its time talking about the airfield. avs5221 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep, the airfield has an ICAO identifier. Recognition by an international organisation is an indication of notability. It's not a private farm strip but a publicly available airfield. A little of the history of the airfield can be found on the nl.Wiki article on Middenmeer, which states that it was a Royal Netherlands Air Force base in the Second World War. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Dutch, so I'm relying on a translation, but the NL page has 2 sentences on the airfield. This would seem to refute keeping the article, no? avs5221 (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * English Language sources for WWII use. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the links. However, I still don't think they lend any notability to the airstrip. The first article seems to downplay the airfield's role (yes, it was used by the Dutch during WWII, but does that meet WP:GNG?) and the second article mentions the field once in passing. Maybe this could be merged into Military history of the Netherlands during World War II or Middenmeer, but I really have a hard time seeing why this deserves its own page. I don't doubt the airfield played a role in WWII, but it wasn't a major role necessitating a separate article. avs5221 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. For one, every other Dutch airport has an article (see List_of_airports_in_the_Netherlands). Middenmeer is without a doubt small, but how big does an airport have to be for it to be notable? It doesn't actually have an ICAO identifier, though you do see EHMM used on occasion. I'm not sure why this is, possibly this identifier has been requested but not yet granted (like EHOW is due to be assigned to Oostwold_Airport). Also, purely by chance - I'm a subscriber to an aviation magazine and this month it features a four page article on an aircraft (a Gyrocopter actually) being tested from this airport, so in aviation circles at least it doesn't seem to be that obscure. The airport is home to five different flying schools as well, has a fairly large amount of hangar space and there's 25 aircraft resident at the airport. And as said (though the article doesn't mention, but I'll add it), in WWII the area was used as a military airfield as well, giving it some historic notability.BabyNuke (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep. The article is complete enough to add value to Wikipedia as a whole. That the Middenmeer page would be bleak without its references to the a/d says more about that page than about this one. And indeed, if any aerodrome is worth a separate page then they all are. I regret however that NOT all Dutch aerodromes have their page as yet, one I am missing is the Axel gliderfield. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because Axel is a glider field. The only glider field that has an article is Terlet Airfield, and that's because the airfield is also used by fixed with aircraft (for tugging) and has an ICAO indicator. Furthermore, it has its own entry in the Dutch AIS.BabyNuke (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an explanation, ok, thanks. For myself I keep believing that an encyplopedia should be _complete_, so that if it is once decided to mention any single aerodrome then the goal should be to mention them all. I am actually considering even creating a category "former aerodromes" for my Belgian home country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan olieslagers (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jan, one way of seeing if an article is going to be able to stand alone is to start by writing in in your sandbox. If it looks like it might make a decent article there then it will probably be OK. If you're struggling to get more than a stub then it's probably best restricted to an entry in a list. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2010 (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.