Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reforestation Services 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. BJ Talk 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reforestation Services Heliport

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

Once again, fails WP:N and WP:RS. Directory sites do not confirm notability. See the notability section on the Aviation WikiProject. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although the Aviation project guidelines have no bearing whatsoever on anything whatsoever since they have not been vetted and approved as a Wikipedia guideline and should not be mentioned since they have as much value as my personal musings on my user page which also have not been approved by the Wikipedia community, this still fails the only relevant notability guideline, which is the main WP:N. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia does not yet recognize it, the project does. It's a general consensus now. The only thing left is for it to be considered a real guideline. The consensus stands that all aviation related articles must still pass WP:N and WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then mention it when it becomes an actual guideline. Think of it like this, what if WP:ORE has a guideline that all things in Oregon are notable, then this would pass that guideline, so which way does this article go. That's why WikiProject rules mean nothing unless they become Wikipedia guidelines/policies. And since all articles must pass WP:RS and must pass WP:N if not covered by a recognized sub-notability guideline such as WP:BIO, then yes that would be the consensus for all aviation related articles along with all articles not covered by said sub-guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point. In all my last discussions, a few editors would come in and say keep because there is a consensus among aviation editors that airports and the like are inherently notable. This would cause some of them to reach no consensus discussions. I am putting in that there is a new consensus before any comments like that can be made. I can mention anything I deem relevant in a deletion discussion. Since this is aviation related, I brought up their own consensus to further back my point. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you have experienced the same thing I have in AFDs where people cite un-approved WikiProject rules, thus why they should not be mentioned at AFDs. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's NOT an unapproved wiki rule. It's a consensus among editors. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a consensus among editors at a WikiProject, and that is all it is. Thus, unless it receives consensus from the broader community and becomes an official guideline, it means nothing in an AFD. Ten people (or a similarly small group) getting together and deciding how things should go in a much larger community is called an oligarchy or in Wikiparlance a cabal, something that is frowned upon. Aboutmovies (talk)
 * Wrong, it's a general consensus. I put my opinion into it and I'm not in that project. The people who were in on the consensus were in the project and the people who were involved in the numerous AfDs for the articles it covered. The people who would vote to deleted the articles gave input, the people who voted to keep them gave input, and the people who have never even seen the AfD gave input. It is a general consensus. Just because it's not widely known does not make it any different. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, until it becomes an actual guideline, it means nothing. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what guideline are you actually talking about: This which is the one I assumed you were talking about, which again everything above stands in that it is a WikiProject guideline and that's it. Or do you mean this stale proposal that had a total of what ten or so editors "involved" after the discussion was moved to its own page. And in which there does not appear to me to be a consensus to me, just lots of comments and proposals, but never even a straw poll to see if there was some sort of minimal thing everyone could agree on. It just died out, which is why despite being involved in some of the related AFDs for the previous round of deletions for these private airports/heliports, I did not comment on the proposal. Again, ten people is not a consensus, especially when they don't all agree. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are missing my point completely. For one, it does not matter if it is not approved or not. People count essays in deletion discussion when the essay is not completely accepted or known, yet there is nothing in wikipedia that directly states not to do this. If you can quote to me where it states that you are not to quote consensus that has not been widely accessible, then I will believe you. But until then, nothing wrong has occurred. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it is wrong per some policy or guideline, I'm simply stating my opinion (and reasons for that opinion) why WikiProject guidelines should not be brought up in AFDs. And as to other people and past AFDs using essays or WikiProject guidelines, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to why that argument carries little weight. You are welcome to your opinion on the use of the aviation WikiProject and other WikiProject guidelines, I simply disagree for the reasons outlined above. It's simply a bad idea, as I think you may recall from last time several airport/heliport articles were brought up for deletion. Had the unapproved WikiProject Consensus never been broached at that time, far more of these utterly non-notable airport/heliport stubs could have been deleted and a lot of back and forth about airport notability could have been avoided in those discussions. Instead that topic could have been covered in a standard guideline proposal and a lot of time saved. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete, the private helipad itself does not appear notable. An article about the company might be more appropriate, but even that is questionable. I found one news item about a company helicopter that was forced to land in a remote area during poor visibility. The helicopter was prevented from taken off once the weather cleared by a person who objected to aerial herbicide application. Other than that, I can't find much. The coords listed in the article don't seem to show a helipad, but just to the north there is a helicopter parked in what appears to be an unmarked parking lot. A parking lot is not notable and wikipedia is not a directory to list all FAA approved landing areas. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. WP is not a heliport directory. To me the clue is that no one would want to read the article unless they needed a place to land their helicopter (and in that case it would be better to rely on official sources not WP), nothing interesting otherwise. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N. Little content in article as well. Chaldor (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Prior AfD records at WikiProject Airports indicate general consensus that private-use airports (ones which are not open to the public) fall below the threshold of notability regardless of required government filings, such as with the FAA for US airports. (That's the basis for private-use airports being considered non-notable in the proposed guideline at WP:WikiProject Airports/Notability.)  Therefore fails WP:N. Ikluft (talk) 06:57, 7 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.