Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strathearn Station

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. GB fan 16:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strathearn Station[edit]

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

References in no way support the information on the page the only two things that the references support is the geographic location and the location of its airstrip all of the rest of the information is therefore illagitimate and this is why the information must be removed or the page taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywfawttp (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 September 2014‎ created by GB fan 12:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be proven as to where all the information came from then abiding by the laws of Wikipedia the page should be taken down or all unsupported facts taken down. The website http://www.bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=247060&cmd=sp&st=SA&place=Strathearn&file=Strathearn.htm has is obviously automated (therefore it has incorrect information) and the website http://www.aeroclub.net.au/showao-4273-cfcd20.html has no relevance at all (It also has no information on it). Also all of the images are not properly referenced and therefore should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywfawttp (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, I found nothing to support all the facts asserted about the station. AlanS^talk 13:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the sources weren't completely unreliable (and they are), it still wouldn't be notable. Frickeg (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2014 (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.