Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breuner Airfield

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 relevant issue here is notability, as defined by the community-adopted guideline WP:GNG, so valid comments must discuss how this article does or does not meet that standard. I had to discount numerous opinions (mostly "keep"s) because they did not address this standard or misapplied it. Such comments included "Not a notable airfield and the club failes to be notable", "it nonetheless deserves to remain", "it doesn't seem to be a hoax or libelous", "seems to be notable because it meets WP:RS", "there's nothing too terribly wrong with it", "fails to be notable in any possible fashion" and "it has the possibility of independent sourcing. That's all WP:GNG requires" (whereas in fact actual sourcing is required). The opinions that remain under consideration establish a consensus that the subject's coverage does not rise to the level required by WP:N. The new references referred to in the last comment (a Google Maps link and a link to a patent) are very unlikely to change that assessment.  Sandstein  17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breuner Airfield[edit]

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

WP:NN club facility. Mentioned in passing in citations 2 &3, but no significant coverage or even any assertion of notability. Failed {{prod}} due to author's objection. Also see related discussion on ANI discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: the ICAO does not recognize it as an airfield. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable airfield and the club failes to be notable. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. All edits (and the PROD removal) are by the same editor, it doesn't seem anyone except for that editor finds the subject particularly notable. Dayewalker (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a new article which is why it hasn't gotten that much attention. I should point out that even proposed or formerly proposed rail lines and stations are notable, Breuner was proposed as a civil aviation airport but was rebuked by the community. I think that satisfies notability. Perhaps the topic can be expanded, will you all be cool with seeing what a {{rescue}} can accomplish? and of course i removed the prod, and i also stated why according to policy. I am actively working on the article, i would ask that this deletion be desisted until the work is complete. the article is sourced and follows WP:N it has non trivial coverage in the Berkeley Daily Planet.MY♥INchile 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: and finally if all else fails don't delete but merge to Breuner Marsh, Parchester Village, Richmond, California, or Richmond, California, or Point Pinole Regional Shoreline.MY♥INchile 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I disagree with the assertion that "proposed or formerly proposed rail lines and stations are notable." Only WP:Notable proposed or WP:Notable formerly proposed rail lines and stations are WP:Notable. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, unencyclopedic refs, couldn't find better refs searching the net. Ikluft (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and Government Reports and the Subjects own website are not encyclopedic? please explain!MY♥INchile 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't about the rc model club or its private facility. Brief mentions in any media are not significant on their own. Ikluft (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the airfield not the club, and they were about the Breuner Marsh site which is where the facility is so they were about the airfield.MY♥INchile 00:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the about us page which is used as a source, it seems to me that the club owns the land/airfield which means it's also about the club. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there's more to this than the page says there is, and as the page was created a mere two days ago, perhaps we could just flag it as a stub and wait for it to grow. It doesn't strike me as entirely non-notable, being as it seems to have a relatively unique history and be the subject of a minor bit of controversy. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion went off-topic click Show (to the right) to expand --->
comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there. for the sake of transparancy this article was probably nominated for deletion just because of a disagreement on whether it counted as an airport for the category airports of the san francisco bay area, seems mean spirited to me, i hope that's not the case. =(MY♥INchile 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Your accusations in the name of "transparency" are not at all correct. The article was nominated because the subject doesn't seem to be notable, but why it's here isn't the issue any longer. Dayewalker (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no it got nominated because of the disagreement, the disagreement led to ANI and that lead to if i can't get my may i'll suggest it isn't notable IMHOMY♥INchile 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment (this part was not off topic) comment that hsitory includes years of fighting for the community of Parchester Village that has had to fight off developers, prospectors, enviromental poisoning, violence, poverty, park closures, local business problems, etc. this definitely made the news in the 1970s if anyone would be willing to help track down the articles from the Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle or Examiner or Richmond Post and Globe or Richmond Museum of History that would be great, there are definitely more sources out there.MY♥INchile 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't meet notability requirements of Wikipedia. I tried to help but was confronted with disruptive edits that would have become a multiple-page edit war. I was left with no alternative but to bring it to the attention of admins. The prod and then AfD nomination came from an admin who independently reviewed the page. Ikluft (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Myheartinchile (talk · contribs)'s asessment of my motivations for stating the article's subject is not notable and nominating it for deletion. I recommend the editor retract that statement. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they weren't about you they were about Ikluft, i feel he duped you in a way. it's how i feel. no offenseMY♥INchile 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD's are not places to express the way you feel about another editor. Bidgee (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the notability of the airfield is marginal, at best, it nonetheless deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources needed to show notability. I am amazed that anyone would claim any inherent notability for a place where people play with model airplanes. Is the model train set in my attic inherently notable? I think not! If there's been "years of fighting" then add the newspaper articles. Edison (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i would suggest you look at the satelite maps, the installation is pretty big.MY♥INchile 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't get a reliable size using satelite maps but it still doesn't make it notable. Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The runway is approximatly 4/5th of a mile (469ft)here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is about 143 metres. Not very long so I doubt it could support small passenger aircraft such as SAAB 340 or even a Dash-8. So I wouldn't call it an airport. Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do real-life airplanes land on it with regular frequency? That seems to be the issue here with calling it an "airport." Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, by Google sat imagery the runway is about 300 feet, which is way too short. It would have to be more than twice that

long for a Cessna 172 to do a short-field takeoff and landing. I'd advise against even that unless you had a steady headwind right down the runway. Also, the "X" painted on each end of the runway marks it as closed to airplanes except in an emergency. (credentials: I'm a flight instructor.) Ikluft (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, the ICAO does not recognize it, the international standards body that governs these things. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i'm afraid; passing coverage only. In addition, the Berkely Planet is not what i'd describe as a notable newspaper; anything that describes itself as a twice-weekly free newspaper run by a retired couple of readers who took over when it folded in 2002 doesn't really get my vote for "reputable sources". Ironholds 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Daily Planet has some very obvious biases, but it is the only newspaper in the area covering local politics in any detail, and its actual news coverage isn't any worse than other "reputable" sources. 66.92.14.198 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Berkeley Planet is actually a respected alternative weekly. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that About BARCS and Cal Home Finder (Real Estate sale search site) can be classes as WP:RS. Bidgee (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know...it works for me. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was on about the 2 sources above which are not reliable and not saying that the links don't work. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, kiddo, I was talking about the same thing. I just was not in agreement with your view. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-short but there's nothing too terribly wrong with it...--Forego (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty more to add to this, now three-day-old, article to establish notability. The Breuner's go back to the gold rush that birthed much of the San Francisco/Bay Area and all points up toward Sacramento (California's state capitol). The Breuners apparently were prominent retailers which fits into the history of the area with many of the wealthiest making their money by selling goods and services to the goldminers. Likewise that this airstrip, airfield, whatever, is one of the last remaining ones also seems to indicate some notability. Here are a few sources to help:

It likely will take some offline digging through archives to show what role the airfield had in the history of the company/family as well as explaining who did what. Banjeboi 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's marginal, but it has the possibility of independent sourcing. That's all WP:GNG requires. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the sources above, the Breuners themselves might have a shot at notability, but an "airfield" that planes can't actually land on is no more notable than a kids' sandbox at the neighborhood park. Jpatokal (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a poor analogy as a named airfield with at least some sources is a far cry from some random unnamed sandbox. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Un no. The "airfield" has been named by the club, not someone without authority to create "named airfields" - it's not recognized by the ICAO so is not a "named airfield". Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that with a source? From the history of the place it would seem the airfield was named when it was owned by Gerry Breuner and not by the club, furthermore the club does not even own the site, they simply lease it.MY♥INchile 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming or not naming is irrelevant; a sandbox would not be notable even if was the John Q. Random Memorial Sandbox. And based on other comments, I would agree with merging the existing content into Breuner Marsh, and possibly redirecting Breuner Airfield there as well. Jpatokal (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. Only one secondary source is provided, and it doesn't even contain the words "airfield", "radio", or "model". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE New source(s) have been added, please check it out.MY♥INchile 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not an airport, no notability on its own outside of the refs that relate it to the marsh. Since it fits with the Breuner Marsh material, I'd suggest noting its existence in a sentence or two in the marsh article. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why isn't it notable? there doesn't seem to be any other place like it or if so these places are very very rare or have gone out of fashion; it is obscure and interesting and it is a historical site.MY♥INchile 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "other place like it or if so these places are very very rare or have gone out of fashion"? As an radio controlled aircraft airfield? I know of a few in Australia and they don't have their own article and doesn't mean that they should. Bidgee (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it isn't unique. I know of another in the San Francisco Bay Area which also isn't notable. Ikluft (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if it were unique (it's not), that doesn't necessarily make it notable under wikipedia's notablility guidelines. If it is notable, it will have secondary references that show it being so. Dayewalker (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you not be more specific with reasoning? Ironholds 11:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds like a reminder is in order that AfD is intended to be a discussion, not a ballot. (added "not a ballot" template in the heading) Ikluft (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Oops! I forgot to place why it could be notable. A first of it's kind is notable. My friend Ecoleetage told me to bring my opinion in this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a references saying it was the first of its kind. You'd need a source for that and the current article doesn't make that assertion. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Change to DELETE Unfortunately, no further references exist. I wish I could rescue it though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again you've given no reason for your deletion or even for your change of heart. Please be more specific with your reasoning for keeping or deleting. Ironholds 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Breuner Marsh. Although nothing in this article is notable in itself (per general thought process by nom and others above), it would be relevent information to add to the Breuner Marsh article.Nrswanson (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like the direction in the discussion which is gaining momentum. I posted my position for delete because I looked around and don't believe significant independent sources exist. I'd have been willing to go with it if some had been found. The only independent sources have been primarily about the marsh, not the RC aircraft club facility, which makes them significant and supporting notability only for the marsh. Since the theme of the references revolves around the marsh, merging into the marsh article appears to be a reasonable action based on that situation. Ikluft (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wholeheartedly agree with the merge proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. While there are references, none of them are primarily about this field except for the one by the club that runs the field and that would help meet WP:V only. As an option to outright deletion, I would support a redirect to Model airplane field and including the basic information for this article into a list in that article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to be notable in any possible fashion. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not really notable only a big field, reading the references it looks like it is probably being described as more than a big field as part of a opposition campaign and issues to do with a plan to re-develop. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have again added more references in addition to new content, this site has quite an interesting history, if the time is allowed to let the research be done, a lot more is available.MY♥INchile 17:04, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Breuner_Airfield&oldid=1196281137"