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. The consensus here is that the sources presented are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Shereth 16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoney Point Airfield[edit]

Stoney Point Airfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A bunch of homeowners got together and made a runway for their private aircraft. That is in no way notable. It fails WP:RS and WP:N. If the same bunch of rich home owners got together and made an olympic swimming pool, would that be notable too? Just because it is a runway recognized by the FAA does not make it notable. The FAA locator site is just a list, which should be excluded from WP:RS standards. Delete as there is nothing to merge this with. Undeath (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You're still using the "swimming pool" argument? Ignoratio elenchi--irrelevant conclusion! An airport is not a swimming pool.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is not needed. Also, see my below post about comparisons to understand what they truly are. Any two objects being compared do not need to be the same thing. Undeath (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for how my tone came across. I do still stand by my point that the argument made is indeed an irrelevant conclusion... if A is a subset of B and A is a subset of C does not necessarily mean that B is a subset of C. Please read Ignoratio elenchi.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to read it because I already know what it means. However, you are missing the point. You do not have to compare two like items. It is not always like that. People compare totally different things all the time. For example, this airport is like a community pool in the sense that a community owns and operates it, and only the community is allowed to use it. There is no gettin around that comparrison. It's not irrelevant. Undeath (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you do need to read it and I don't think you understand it. Your "swimming pool" argument is this: 1) The airport is private. 2) Some swimming pools are private. 3) Private swimming pools should not be listed in Wikipedia. 4) Therefore, private airports should not be listed in Wikipedia. It's a textbook example of irrelevant conclusion. If you truly understood the meaning, you most likely would stop insisting on using the argument.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per this H2H (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WOW that's a reason to keep!--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is a private grass landing strip, no pavement. The cited "references" available for the facility appear to be from FAA Form 5010-7 information that all private landing sites must submit to the government so the FAA can compile a list of runways and landing sites. Filling out government paperwork and having the data contained on the form published on various internet sites is not an assertion of notability. There are many websites that display the 5010 data and constantly update that information, wikipedia does not sync this information from the database making it inherently unreliable and potentially unsafe to use as an airport directory. Not all grass landing sites in the world are notable, there are 250 Turf runways in Georgia alone. Notability could be established by significant news coverage, notable aircraft accidents etc. 5010 data alone does not establish notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What difference does the suface make in notability? Savusavu Airport is a grass (okay mud) landing strip...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not notable. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why? Please give details. Just saying "not notable" is not a reason or argument as explained in WP:JNN.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It might possibly be worth including in a list (but without a redlink). It is certainly too NN to warrant an article. We had another of these a few days ago, which to my surprise was kept. But then being in England, I am poerhaps ill-qualified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport where nominator argued to delete a similar airport for same reasons but consensus chose to keep the airport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you cannot even compare this to chadwick. For one, this is a homeowners little fun strip. They are the only people to use it. They all own aircraft so they built something to take off from. The list that the FAA has arranged is just that, a list. It only confirms it's existence. Look at the talk page on WP:AIRPORTS and some of the recent merges due to the fact that many of these private airports are non notable. Undeath (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You compared it to a swimming pool... I can compare it to an airport. Besides, it sounds like this one gets even more traffic than the other if there are indeed more planes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this really is starting to smell like "forum shopping" where one article isn't deleted and so another article is targeted in hopes to sway consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Recognised by the FAA (6GA0), which would suggest more than a little notability. The quirky nature of the airfield's ownership should not disqualify its inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA basically lists the runway based on a form that the owners filed out and mailed in. Then the FAA assigns an airport ID number to it. Similarly, the FCC receives paperwork to license amateur radio operators, they then assign that operator a number / license. Having a ham radio license from the FCC doesn't make that person notable for inclusion and having an FAA ID doesn't mean a grass runway is notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article is not about ham radios, so the comparison is irrelevant. The fact remains the FAA recognises the airfield, regardless if it is made from grass or asphalt. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA doesn't recognize anything, they simply list that it exists. Being listed and having a name or number is is not a judgment of notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying that comparisons are irrelevant. A comparison does not have to be direct. I could compare a house to a frog, if the right situation applied. I compare this airport to a community swimming pool, because, like a community pool, it is owned by the community and it is kept up by the community. Also, please see the new consensus on the WP:AIRPORTS talk page. There are non notable airports, and this is clearly one of them. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comparisons are irrelevant. Like comparing an airport to a swimming pool. Relevant comparisons are relevant--like comparing an airport to an airport. You won't let me compare an airport to an airport, but we have to let you compare an airport to a swimming pool? Please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please provide a better link to the WP:AIRPORTS notability consensus you mention. The words "notable" and "notability" are not on the main page, and the listings on the talk page seem to provide one of the project members refuting your statements. There was a reference to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, but it only contains notability guidelines for airplanes and air disasters, not airports. Please reference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In saying since the Chadwick "airport" article exists, are you saying all runways, helipads, seaplane bases, landing strips and airfields, public or private, in all countries of the world are inherently notable as long as some agency or website has previously published data about the runway? I'm curious where you would draw the line. Do general rules like WP:N still apply to these types of articles? Shouldn't some "Significant coverage" exist to establish notability? Does the result of the Chadwick airport afd, about an unremarkable 1,500 ft private grass runway, mean that now all runways over 1,500 ft may have their own article? If not, where should the line be? Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that 1) the nominator made the same arguments on another article that resulted in a consensus of keep and provide a reference to that discussion, and 2) that the reference for WP:AIRPORTS does not seem to have a notability guideline for airports, as the nominator asserted--at least, not one I can find. With that, other editors and admins can quickly complete research and draw their own conclusions. Consensus can and does change, I've just seen no indicator to believe that it has.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you personally draw the line for inclusion? I would think the line would be something similar to including facilities containing runways over say 5,000 ft or facilities that received significant coverage, ie. first of its kind, something important/historic happened there, etc. -Dual Freq (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use an "arbitrary number" for size of runway, as described in WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Why 5,000 feet? Does that mean that a runway of 4,999 is just one foot short? I would, however, encourage WP:AVIATION to come up with guidelines that are right for their specialist topic! And until that happens, Chadwick Airport and Stoney Point Airfield look pretty much the same to me. And since the arguments for deletion look the same and are from the same two people, I'm going to come to the same conclusion. If there is new information, or a different argument, or additional data, please bring it up now.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the reason I suggested 5,000 ft was in the FAA's Airport Data (5010) & Contact Information search pages when you look for an airport, in Georgia for example, they have a printout option called "Emergency Plan Airports" "containing basic airport facility, contact and runway information at airports with non-water runways 5,000 feet or more in length." That seemed to me that they made some kind of value judgment of usefulness of those runways and a similar judgment could be made here. As for the Chadwick discussion, I made one comment about the availability of sources there, I don't think I even voted on that one. I'm waiting on this one to see a compelling reason to keep it other than the WP:OSE and the "FAA says its real" arguments. I'm also curious where others would draw the line. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An FCC directory listing does not confer inherent notability on a strip of grass a few people own and use as a private air strip. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial covereage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Of course not. But the FCC and FAA paperwork, coupled with all the other sources, are worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the fact that FAA paperwork has been filled out means they have been properly licensed. A corner store would also need to fill in paperwork to gain a license to operate. However, fulfilling legal paperwork obligations is not the same as being notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Proposed deletion of Oregon Airports] for discussion on the FAA as a reliable source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if a corner store had a runway and operated as an airport, that would probably be pretty gosh darned notable, wouldn't you think? Of coruse, if you're simply trying to say that a corner store has a "business license" that comparison doesn't apply because business licenses (at least in the US) are granted at the state and local level, not by the FAA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - government paperwork is government paperwork whether it be at the local, state, or federal level. Pretty darn notable is established by coverage about the subject in reliable sources. FAA licensing is essentially a directory entry. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I would hope there is a big difference between a ten dollar local permit to open up a shoe store and whatever must happen to be declared an airport by the FAA. But in response to coverage, anyone bothered to google this thing yet?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Which of those are writing about the airfield? I see a the wikiepdia article, some photos and website for the airfield. The closest thing is a porsche club article that mentions the airfield. I really don't see any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Sigh okay, I'll play that game. Map to the airport, Relics of the Space Race article, County commissioner's meeting concerning the airport development, Georiga Aviation Dealers (indicating that more services are avialable at this airport than at Chadwick Airport), The airport website, and photos of planes at the airport. Not enough? Try +"Stoney Point" +Airport +Georgia for a broader listing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply I'm sorry if you feel I'm playing a game. I'm not. I think we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes reliable sources for notability. I reviewed the same sites you've reviewed, and I come to a different conclusion. What I see are primarily passing mentions and directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed on that part! We've both made our points, admins can evaluate from here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you think this is a game of sorts anyway. Please explain to me, and I actually want to know, I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but how do you think this is a notable airport? Why does, in your opinion, an FAA code make the airport notable? Undeath (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • sigh It's not just the FAA code, although that counts for something. It's all the other references that I pointed out from the two separate google searches. Further, consensus agreed that Chadwick Airport is notable. This one is larger, with more traffic, has a bigger runway, and therefore it would seem to me that if the smaller lower-traffic one is notable then the larger higher-traffic one is also notable. Further, there have been no new arguments presented on this airport that were not presented at Chadwick. And if from all those reasons, the smaller lower-traffic airport was kept by consensus, why should this one be any different? I just see this as "forum shopping" where editors fail to get their way on one article, so editors can tend to target another hoping to find a different review more favorable to their stance and then backtrack to the other articles. And that is why this is coming across to me as a "game" of sorts. If there is a new reason, or if you think that the old reasons no longer are valid, then bring them up and explain why--but re-hashing an old argument without new information is pointless...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more comment and I've said this before: if you really think that consensus was incorrect on Chadwick, then go to WP:AIRPORTS and start working on notability guidelines. It was referenced above stating that "new consensus has been achived" (or something like that) but I could not find anything along those lines. Here, I'll get you started: Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports\Notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop comparing this to Chadwick. Chadwick is nothing like this. For one, there was no proof that it had less trafic, and, if it did, I'll probably re-list it for deletion in a couple months. I'm not going to start a notability page for airports because I am not in that project. Let them decide their notability section. Either way, it must abide by real standards like WP:N and WP:RS. If it doesn't, it does not deserve to be here. End of story. Also, your google searches only base their small information off of the site for the homeowners group. It gives no substantial information nor does it make the airstrip notable. As it stands, the consensus for this is delete. Undeath (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm basing that Chadwick had less air traffic based on the number of planes and hangars available. And you probably will re-list Chadwick for deletion in a couple of months, using this article to support your stance. This is called "forum shopping" as I mentioned above. Is that your plan, or do I owe you an apology?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the plan and I am starting to think that you do not know what you are talking about. I know what is non notable, and this grass strip clearly is not. There are no decent mentions online. Chadwick had some sources, this does not. The FAA code accounts for nothing but to prove exsistence. (which other editors agree) I don't need to make a consensus page for the wikiproject. All articles must abide by certain rules of wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident in leaving judgement on that topic to passing admins.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. We aready had a "passing admin" and he said for delete. Undeath (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for revisit I have asked several of the editors who placed one-time "delete" comments to revisit the page as it has gone through changes and additional sources have been added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further I have also notified editors who commented at the Chadwick discussion who have not participated here about this discussion. This notification went to all editors regardless of their stance at Chadwick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No change in my opinion. The sources are a passing glance at the airsrtip and testimonias from the neighbors that live there. The one interesting thing was a government helicopter had to land there, but that was an accident which doesn't deserve much attention. Undeath (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a private grass strip for which interest appears to be mostly of directory or routine regulatory nature. WP:RS coverage is not there and the strictly-private nature of the field makes the likelihood of finding RS per inherent notability a very long stretch. Outside the homeowners' private use, this is just slightly more significant than a golf course. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "not notable" isn't really an argument, it's just a statement... and the article contains much more information than would just be found in a directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport. If people don't engage in discussion at WP:NOTE or WP:AIRPORT then these type of 'not notable' nominations could go on forever with quite variable results depending on who turns up. Just agree on a guideline and stop using wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. MickMacNee (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The rule appears to be: if you have a lawnmower and a pen to fill out FAA paperwork, it goes in Wikipedia. But the sources should probably meet Wikipedia's standards (i.e. not self published or self published or self published or self published, others are not exactly shining examples of the peer reviewed literature). There is also something wonderfully quanit about an article that spends about 1/3 of its text talking about vintage car contests, fish frys, and the fact that someone had a charity auction that raised 93$ . Pdbailey (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a supporter of keep, but I'm not sure why those were expanded. I had simply entered that other events take place, and then one of the delete editors expanded them. Perhaps that editor can respond to why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added that because some other user kept referring to a fish fry as "other local and regional events" which overstates what the actual references say. The dogs catching frisbees thing isn't even at the airfield its at a flying dog farm next to the airport. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh My Did you just admit to using Wikipedia to prove a point or to making a bad faith edit? maybe not directly, but it sure seems like you are heading that direction. If you disagreed with the expansion in being good for Wikipedia, why did you make the change that way?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The FAA airport registration and the other lists are a primary source and there is no evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources. The homeowner's associaton is not independent of the subject. A mention in an all-inclusive lists is not "significant coverage." WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, etc... SDY (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I've heard that before and asked, and not gotten what I thought to be a good answer: Exactly how is the Federal Aviation Administration not a reliable source?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're very reliable, but their lists are primary sources. See WP:PSTS. A phonebook is a reliable source for addresses and phone numbers (not that such things would be used on wikipedia much), but that a person is listed there does not make them notable, despite what Navin Johnson might think. SDY (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nuther Question How is the FAA a primary source for a private airfield?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Primary source" does not mean "Self published source." It means raw data. The list is just a comprehensive list, hence the phonebook analogy: it's a list of everything, not a list of important things. It's a detailed list, and the information is reliable, but it is not "significant coverage." Is every street in Harlowton, MT notable because it's on a map? Is Uncle Bob's Hardware Shop notable because it is on the list of members in the local BBB? Both of these are independent of the topic they describe, but they are clearly both primary sources. SDY (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment you've mixed several arguments there. Rather than re-hash the "comparison to something other than an airport" argument (addressed above to ad nauseum), I'd like to dig a little deeper on the issue of "primary source"-- 1)if "raw data" is a primary source, then why would not the examination and re-analysis of that raw data not then become useful data by Wikipedia standards--for example, if the FAA data was assembled and prepared in a more usable referenced format like one of the many, many aviation data websites referenced in the article? 2) How do all the aviation sites not amount to "significant coverage" (albiet specialist)? 3) How can this "comprehensive data" not be relevant to the article? 4) While the information is indeed identifier data (such as address, locator, etc) there also is other information that has been brought together--age, plane count, runway type and size, contact info, services available, history of incedents, other events, etc. Much more than a "phone directory" would provide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "(1) ...the examination and re-analysis of that raw data not then become useful data..." Please read WP:OR (another obvious problem with primary sources). (2) Their coverage is not significant because it does not discriminate: they cover all airports exactly the same way, this airport is there because everything else is. (3) It is relevant to the content of the article (WP:V), but it does not demonstrate notability (WP:N). (4) Sure, there's a lot of information, but laboratory notes or a census or an interview with a WWII veteran all have a lot of information. Level of detail doesn't make it a secondary source. SDY (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because just because it has an FAA code, doesn't mean its notable, because according to Location identifier, every single airport must have a code, doesn't matter what organization.(I didn't quote that from the article.) Imma copy one of the delete arguements from the Chadwick airport one. Lets say I live in the US. I have to pay taxes because the Federal Government knows I exist, but it doesn't mean my house is notable. Similarly, just because the FAA(a federal entity) recognizes the airport, doesn't make it notable. Notable incidences make it notable. The incident listed doesn't make it notable because the crash wouldn't have warranted an article, would it? Also heres my comment quoted from the CHadwick discussion:If we delete this one, I can easily type in airport in the search and 1000s more articles like this one would have to be deleted. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How about if a AH-1 SuperCobra made an emergency landing on top of your house? :) --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Then that would be a fairly cool thing, but nothing worthy of an encyclopedia mention. Undeath (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Airports, like railway stations, have a lot of history, whether they are big or little. An airport is not a house or a garage band. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. This airport is a garage band. Some guys got together and registered a piece of land where they can fly their cessnas. That they filed a trademark for their name doesn't make them notable. There is no history beyond "a couple of guys and their big boy toys." It might become something in the future, but wikipedia doesn't care. SDY (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable per WP:N, no significant coverage from reliable sources. Minor, non-notable self-references only. Having an FAA location ID and the presence of 5010 data alone does not establish notability. There are 250 turf runways in the state of Georgia alone, and many thousands more worldwide, they are not all notable no matter how many fish frys they have. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hadn't noticed when I voted, that as of 24 hours ago there alread was an airport notability proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airport_notability_proposal. I suggest people contribute there rather than here their views on FAA codes etc, the sky is not going to fall in if this particular article is/isn't deleted on notability grounds right this minute. MickMacNee (talk) 22:45, 14 August 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.