Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gransden Lodge Airfield

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The result was WITHDRAWN, NO DELETE OPINIONS -- Y not? 12:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gransden Lodge Airfield[edit]

NN airfield -- Y not? 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - former second world war bomber airfield - just needs more work on it. MilborneOne 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Do we have mutliple non-trivial reliable sources about this airfield? -- Y not? 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - yes sources are available, but as this article is only three days old it just needs more work. At least one Canadian pathfinder squadron (405) operated from here and it later became a Mosquito base. Bomber Command lost 102 aircraft operating from this station - so they must have done something notable. MilborneOne 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and let it be renominated later if it isn't improved. I think most WWII airfields have been involved in noteworthy events, and will justify articles if the work is devoted to them. DGG (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not sure if it's good form to nominate an article for deletion within 14 days of its creation unless it's clearly non-notable, a hoax, a BLP problem, a copyvio, etc. Many editors are unfamiliar with userspace, and create documents bit by bit in the main space. A World War II airfield in Britain (as opposed to a training field in Kansas or Saskatchewan) may very well have some notability. --Charlene 00:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with doing so at all. It's more important to keep Wikipedia in check than to make it hard to people to make the effort to do that. Hawkestone 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shall not be deterred :) -- Y not? 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RAF airfield. There are shelves full of books about this sort of thing. Hawkestone 01:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important RAF airfield with a wartime history Kernel Saunters 10:24, 11 July 2007 (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.