Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shingletown Airport


 * 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 merge to Shingletown, California. consensus is clear that there is sourcing, although it's currently beyond the access of many participants. There does not appear to be consensus that we need a standalone page, and a merger is a viable ATD, also solving the lack of mention in Shingletown article Star   Mississippi  01:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Shingletown Airport

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

De-prodded by with the rationale "meets notability". Airport in town of 2,000 people closed in 2002, only source does not mention it. Nor is it mentioned at Shingletown, California. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAIRPORT which states "Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist". AusLondonder (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Closed since 2002, it was a public rural airport that operated since the 1950's. Even if you want to ignore the  WP:NAIRPORT essay's suggestion that a general aviation airport that "is currently or formerly owned by a local, regional or national government entity" is likely to be notable, there was enough news coverage that was turned up in a couple of minutes of searching on Newspapers.com to keep on WP:GNG grounds even though that site doesn't even carry any local newspapers from that town.   "County renews Shingletown airport lease", Redding Record Searchlight 16 Feb 1973, p.27,clip "Move is started to close airport in Singletown", The Redding Record Searchlight 20 Feb 1981, p.5,clip, "County declines airport grant", The Redding Record Searchlight 4 Dec 1996, p.B1,clip part 1clip part 2 are just a few.  Since its closing, it's still in the news as a popular site for amateur astronomers because it is a wide open space in a rural part of California without much light pollution, and there appears to be an annual event held there for astronomers according to the multiple articles covering that aspect.  The fact that the article's only source doesn't mention the airport is likely because the source is a live link to the county website, which isn't likely to mention an airport that was closed 20 years ago.   You can use archive.org to see versions of the site that included a mention that the airport was closed due to safety concerns (the county didn't want to spend the money to clear trees that had grown up to become obstacles to the runway).  There's also a discussion of the airport's history at Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields, but I haven't tried evaluating that site's reliability as a direct source for the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am very conscious of WP:NAIRPORT which makes clear that there's no free pass for airports: "The basic notability requirement still applies. Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." In relation to the sources you have provided, I think that solidifies the argument for deletion. These are trivial, routine mentions from a local county newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first article is only 4 paragraphs, so fairly routine. The second article is 14 paragraphs.  The third article is 13 paragraphs.  They're not trivial mentions in the back pages of the newspaper.  Enough to satisfy GNG, and that's without trying very hard to search.  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Airports need to meet our inclusion guidelines for organizations and the sourcing here does not rise to that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Some sources have been provided, which seems to contradict the arguments for deletion that there is "no evidence". However, whether this is sufficient to warrant a stand-alone page or be merged into the article about its location (one pertinent link would be WP:NOPAGE), remains open to debate, and there is no clear consensus for that amongst the discussion's participants. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shingletown, California, which presently has no mention. This will improve the Shingletown, California article. North America1000 07:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that relevant notability criteria are met. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep - I do not have access to @RecycledPixels's sources but if what they say about them is true then WP:GNG is passed. WP:ITSACASTLE may also apply. Although only loosely applicable, any excuse to link that wonderful essay is welcomed by me. I would love to rewrite the article if I gained access to the sources. (Is this in WP:TWL? I haven't checked yet) casualdejekyll  19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * : Yes, the newspapers.com account that I use is provided to me free through the Wikipedia Library. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Itching to get my hands on the newspapers.com stuff, but they only have one guy processing the applications so I expect it to take a while. In the meantime, sources do exist, so there's no reason to delete. casualdejekyll  21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I only see one source that got added and no further evidence of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI,, the three sources provided by RecycledPixels (arguably, the comment is a bit long, but they are indeed present) are the ones that attracted my attention, and why I relisted. Whether they are used in the article or not at the present time is not a concern, since notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCESEXIST is still not a reason to keep if they're not in the article. Every single source suggested is purely local except for Abandoned & Little Known Airfields which, despite being somewhat notable, is still a hobby site run by one person and therefore not an RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a valid interpretation of SOURCESEXIST (a valid example would be if somebody keeps saying "there must be sources" but doesn't present any. At least here, we do have some of them), although that wasn't what I linked anyway: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.. The question whether local sources are enough for notability or not is not one that has a settled answer in policy: in this case, however, and without pronouncing myself on the issue, even if the sources are not enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article, that would not exclude it being mentioned on the article about the locality where this airport was (hence, de facto, a merge). Hence something which does pretty much warrant further discussion. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have to take issue with user:Johnpacklambert's claim that airports need to meet WP:ORG.  No they don't.  Airports are owned by organisations but are not themselves organisations.  Rather they are transport hubs.  Thus Heathrow Airport's notability does not depend on the notability of Heathrow Airport Holdings, it's owner and operator.  Airports are in the same category as train stations and we should apply a similar approach to them.
 * An airport running scheduled passenger services is almost sure to be notable. But this airport does not appear to have that – it is just a general aviation airport according to its article.  It thus needs to work a bit harder to establish notability.  No comment on whether the sources offered here achieve that.  If they do, I would expect there to be somewhat more to write in the article than exists at present. SpinningSpark 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is a lack of access to sources because for whatever reason RecycledPixels does not wish to write the article, and I'm waiting to gain access through an open TWL app. Once that happens, I can improve the article. If the article is deleted, I can always recreate it with the sources that I know exist, showing it passes GNG. casualdejekyll  19:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, airports do not have automatic or inherent notability. Per WP:NAIRPORT: "The basic notability requirement still applies. Significant, independent and reliable sources specifically about the airport must exist." An airport with scheduled passenger service is obviously highly likely to meet WP:GNG, but as with all organisations, it needs the sourcing to demonstrate that. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I still disagree about the notability of the airport on the basis of stories such as "County declines airport grant" per WP:AUD or trivial coverage such as "County renews Shingletown airport lease", I appreciate that you're willing to actually improve the article rather than just assert "it's notable" and leave it in the poor state it was before my nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A poor state it was and still is in. I did a little but I really do need the sources... Average wait on TWL Newspaper apps is 5 days and it's only been 1.... urgh. I've been itching to write an article for a while. Any suggestions while I wait? casualdejekyll  22:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can use the clipping function on those articles so they should be accessible to anyone and I'll update the URLs. It won't be until later though because I'm on the road now. The bad news about your wait for newspapers.com is that the approval (and renewal) process is usually a lot more than 5 days, because after it's approved at TWL, there's usually a few weeks before I get the notice that the subscription is active.   RecycledPixels (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've modified the links to articles I gave above to add links to clips that I'm pretty sure can be accessed by anybody.  Here's another, about the astronomy events held at the former airport: clip 1.  Hope that helps.  RecycledPixels (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You pinged me to tell me that airports are not automatically notable as if I had said that. I said no such thing.  You clearly did not read (or at least understand) a word I wrote as you then go on to repeat the incorrect claim that airports need to meet NORG.  You also cite WP:AUD as if that was generally applicable.  It is just a part of NORG.  If it was a general principle that "limited interest" sources could not establish notability that would rule out a very large number of articles on physics, history, and stamp collecting etc that have no chance of ever being covered in a national newspaper.  Since you have now demonstrated that your nom is based on a complete misinterpretation of guidelines, that puts me at keep. SpinningSpark 08:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your comment that airports (in this case one without scheduled passenger services) are alike to train stations and should be treated as such. You say that I repeated an "incorrect claim that airports need to meet NORG" whereas I actually didn't mention NORG in my reply to you. So perhaps you failed to read my comment. I referred to NAIRPORT. On the broader point though, I actually don't see why airports would not be required to meet WP:NORG which per WP:ORGCRIT applies to "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service" - many airports are private and/or for profit business ventures completely unlike a public train station with scheduled services. To equate airport notability with psychics is just absurd. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, you didn't refer to NORG directly, but you did say "...but as with all organisations, it needs the sourcing..." which cannot be read as anything other than saying airports come under NORG. You also cited WP:AUD, which, as I've already commented, is part of NORG.  So I fail to see why you are wasting space here denying it, especially as you have now said directly that you think NORG applies.  No idea why you are accusing me of equating "airport notability to psychics".  That would seem to be some kind of strawman argument, but perhaps you can explain. SpinningSpark</b> 15:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to Shingletown, California. I recently added information about the local currently operating airport to Alta Sierra, California, a community significantly bigger than Shingletown. Not every topic requires a stand alone article and combining these two articles results in a better article for any reader interested in this community or its defunct airport. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per my second comment above. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Shingletown, California per NorthAmerica1000 and Cullen328. Per WP:IAR, merging in my opinion is a slam-dunk in this case, where the perfect article already exists to merge this stub into. Ironically, the article seems to have come into existence right around the time of the airport's closing.  Stony Brook  babble 15:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to improve the encyclopedia per WP:IAR and User:StonyBrook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casualdejekyll (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.