Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier 126 Heliport


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 22:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier 126 Heliport

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

Non notable heliport. Nothing to merge to. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Notice of this discussion was posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation.   -- Undead Warrior ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable as a stand alone article. It could be worth a mention in List of airports in Oregon if that article is expanded to include all other private facilities. (Or the article List of heliports in Oregon if that was created.) Bottom line, just as every elementary (primary) school does not have enough notability to warrant an article, every heliport or airport will not gain notability just by its existence. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because I see no notability nor any encyclopedic value in this entry.  AK Radecki Speaketh  14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree; while there are some subjects that are inherently notable, heliports are not among them. There is nothing to say about it beyond its existence; therefore notability is not established. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This artcle does nothing to establish or even attmpt to claim notability - for a private Heliport, existance is not enough for a stand-alone article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2008 (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.