Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quad-City Seaplane Base


 * 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. ✗ plicit  06:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Quad-City Seaplane Base

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable small airport. I can't find any significant coverage, despite a REFBOMB to primary sources. All I get are databases and primary sources. Considering the airport had 80 plane operations in all of 2021, and has exactly 1 plane based at it, there's a very low probability this is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources are related to the airport itself. Included citing sources include government agencies, private aviation companies, notable statistics agencies, and a major aviation interest group. This article includes a level of information on par with many other acceptable articles on non-primary airports, and it is directly related to a significant commercial airport that is referenced in the article.slowtationjet — Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. Yes, I think you misspoke, User:Slowtationjet, all sources should relate to the airport but not come from or be generated FROM the subject itself. But they should be about the airport, just not be primary sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation,  and Illinois. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, nothing available beyond WP:EXIST. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are related to the airport itself That's an excellent argument in favor of deletion, I'd say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent argument in favor of deletion, I'd say. Isn't it critical to have external sources that don't come from the airport? All of the sources are very credible and the fact that the airport didn't publish them boosts that credibility further.
 * I think I misunderstood your first comment as saying none of the sources discussed the airport. Yes, having them being independent is good, but they're all primary. See WP:SIGCOV. We need significant coverage of the airport in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Right now we do not have that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete based on Trainsandotherthings's argument. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2022 (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.