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)[reply]

Shingletown Airport

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Shingletown Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded by RecycledPixels 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Spinningspark: 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)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@AusLondonder: 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)[reply]
@Spinningspark: 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)[reply]
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 15:48, 28 April 2022 (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.
More