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 no consensus. Mgm|^(talk) 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Landing Airpark[edit]

No coverage in secondary sources. No notability. There currently isn't a guideline for notability of airports but going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, Ridge Landing wouldn't make it. Note: this was deleted once before although the content is different this time. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the FAA and Air Nav not considered secondary sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Screen Actor's Guild had a listing, that wouldn't make every actor notable, would it? Those are simply listings of facilities as far as I understand them. They just note the existence and not the notability. Dismas|^(talk) 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's the case, then the whole "coverage in secondary sources=notability" mantra is heavily flawed... There's clearly more to notability than having sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case the nomination should say: no non-trivial coverage or something like that. No coverage makes it look like the sources listed are entirely irrelevant. (which they're not) - Mgm|^(talk) 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airports are not actors and the Federal Aviation Administration is not SAG (I can't believe I actually had to type that). By law every airport must have government extensive documentation that are of course secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was unaware that airports aren't actors.... Since you missed my point entirely, what I was getting at is that the FAA lists all airports. How about this, it's like a bank being notable because it has a record with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC isn't a source per se, it's a federal corporation. It's obligated to keep records, the FAA is no different. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm treating this as a geographical location. This entry gives nothing but the standard location and size characteristics. If nothing unique can be told about it, it's probably not notable or at least not ready to have an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent references, so fails notability. Directory listings in government databases are not "substantial coverage." Wikipedia is not a mirror of every government database. There has been no history in previous AFDs of conferring inherent notability on a designated landing strip. Edison (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but for a different reason. While federal databases of airports are not secondary sources, and ordinarily I'd suggest relegating private airports to a single line in lists by state, after looking at the article there is something unusual about this airport. It's part of a residential gated community for pilots. That's out of the ordinary, and I'm sure secondary sources can be found for this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. The article is by no means perfect but it does describe an airstrip in an "unusual" situation. I believe tagging for expansion would be more beneficial than deleting. Wexcan Talk 02:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.