Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark

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 keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Dew Memorial Airpark[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a substantially notable airfield. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is notability perhaps a retag of adding to the article or making it a stub is more appropriate than a deletion of an actual airfield. I will do my part by seeing if we can add WP:RS and notability to the article. WP:COMMONSENSE (a pillar above policies) would seem to make a deletion request unreasonable for an airfield that has been around for 70+ years. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While it's not especially notable, it is covered in thousands of airport-related publications. My impression is that we regard airports as inherently notable enough to include, but if there's specific info about what we do about airport notability, please fill me in. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is an airfield, not an airport. It doesn't have an IATA code. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - IATA codes and nitpicking on terminology are irrelvant; see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this is a privately-owned airfield that lacks an IATA code, it is open to the public. Long-term WP:CONSENSUS (bringing in WP:OUTCOMES) is that notability is established for an airport by way of its being a public airport; this falls under the Five Pillars as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 30 July 2013 (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.