Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Beverly


 * 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... Group nominations are only really appropriate when all members are clearly in the same category of notability, and I'm uncomfortable with a seven item nomination where one of the items was very clearly notable. The nominator should feel free to renominate individual articles they believe warrant deletion, but I don't believe that the six remaining articles in this nom will receive enough analysis to justify any result by the end of the discussion, so I'm closing it early. It is also worth keeping in mind that AfD is not the ideal forum for merge discussions (which is what most contributing editors have suggested so far.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Beverly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Temporary military facility that existed at Beverly Municipal Airport for three years during World War II. So far, one source that covers the subject in detail has been provided, therefore it fails the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because like Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Beverly, they were temporary military facilities at existing civilian airports that are only cited by one source and do not appear to have received significant coverage in any other source.:
 * Martha's Vineyard Naval Auxiliary Air Station

--Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep All of these facilities are notable and have coverage out there. We have an entire page dedicated to Outlying Landing Fields, most of which are modern facilities. There is a distinct lack of coverage for these facilities is that they closed almost seventy years ago, so I highly doubt there are digitized newspaper records for many of these things (although the Martha's Vineyard one has an entire chapter in a book dedicated to it). That being said, a cursory search for any of these facilities will have mentions in other sources. They aren't in-depth, but we are working with online sources for things that closed many decades before the internet started. I have written multiple military facility articles with less coverage than this (literally a sentence in some cases in some obscure book), but to say that an established military facility has supposedly no coverage for something just shows that virtually no research has been done. Also, Martha's Vineyard also did not exist before it was created as a Naval facility, so that directly contradicts the nominator's statement. Finally, just because I am lazy and don't feel like digging up the sources, does not mean that there is only one reputable source out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to close - I'm not necessarily convinced that all of them are notable but the source provided by Kevin Rutherford suggests that at least one of them is, making collective nomination ill advised. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be nominated at all, just that I don't think there's any way to consistently deal with all of them together. Given the history, Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford should probably be redirected to New Bedford Regional Airport rather than deleted (if it's not kept). Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford could be merged to Norwood Memorial Airport which doesn't have a history section. I understand the nominator's intentions but this should probably be split into separate nominations.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note I have removed the Martha's Vineyard facility from this list now that significant coverage has been established. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure that fully clarifies the nomination or a potential result but it's a good start.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge relevant cited information into applicable articles. There does not seem to be enough for these auxiliary military facilities to be stand alone articles. However, their content could make an appropriate section on the history of these airfields as they are today. EricSerge (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with EricSerge, these articles should be merged as history sections (or additions to existing history sections) of the related airports. Abroham1024 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge as per EricSerge and Abroham1024. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I have added a sentence to the Hyannis one and greatly expanded the Nantucket page. Granted, I am almost sure that the NAAF's will have an Army report on cleanup of the base, although I haven't looked yet at this time since I have other things to do. That being said, the Nantucket facility should be removed from this last as well, as a merger would overwhelm balance on that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source for the Nantucket page is a primary source, which does nothing to demonstrate notability. Neither does the self-published source used for the Hyannis page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (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.