Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Point 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 delete. on notability grounds, rather than because of the owner's wishes JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Point Airfield[edit]

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

I declined a Speedy Deletion request for this, which had the reason "a user keeps adding inaccurate info which does not correspond to the wishes of the owner of the premises and he has requested that all refernce to the Airfield and its affiliated services be removed". I suggested the editor (who originally created the article in Oct 2010) should take it to AfD, but instead he blanked it - as others have substantially edited it now and it is quite different from the original version, I don't think "Author blanks" is applicable now. So I've brought it here on his behalf. I'm not sure on what grounds it could be validly deleted, but perhaps notability is a problem - it had been unsourced since creation, and I've done a Google search and found one source, but it doesn't do any more than identify it. This isn't a topic area in which I really know anything, so over to the community... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is a conflict between the need of Wikipedia and the wishes of the owner of the airfield. The version I have reworked was in my opinion one big advertisement. That hurted the author, writing it on request of the owner (I know both personally IRL). He stated safety-issues as reason for reverting. It is unclear to me what is inaccurate, because the author didn't answer that question. I have the idea that writer+owner mistake WP for free webspace. In fact I oppose removal of the page, but I also oppose an advertisement. Eddylandzaat (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having consulted the owner of this facility tonight it is his belief that to allow individuals outside of the Airfield to comment on this page has the future potential to compromise sfaety of pilots and the public as there is the possibility that any unsubstantiated data may be posted on this site. The user who has decided that the original text of the page is unacceptable is quite obviously a busybody who has little else in his life but to edit and report a page which has existed unopposed since Oct 2010. The Airfield is thus guilty of 'advertising' that the field can provide weary pilots a cup of tea ( which is provided free of charge to all visitors), guilty of stating that we have 2 Cessna's and a few mirolights, and guilty od stating that the field has a hanger, user Landzaat should really spend his time looking for meaningful violations of wiki and stop bothering those of us who want to provide a small bit of meaningful info. We would prefer to leave the site in the state we set it up in but if user landzaat disagrees we would prefer if it is removed as inaccurate data which could be up loaded in the future may endanger pilots and the general public in the viscinity of Miltown Malbay. We are a non profit airfield and we fly for no hire nor reward so Landzaat's argument that we advertise is ridiculous, we hold a completely free to the public 'Fly In' event every year and this was an aim of this page to make this info known to as many as possible so they can enjoy a day of fun aviation by some talented pilots, again this is provided frree of charge. Mr. Landzaat has no basis to accusee us of trying to 'advertise' for benefit or profit and from discussion with some local people and neighbours they are far from impressed with this individual who calls himself a local. Please leave us alone to fly as we do not wish to upset anyone, let us administer our page or else please delete it otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntreacy1981 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johntreacy1981. The thing is, it's not *your* page to administer as you wish - Wikipedia articles aren't owned by their subjects. Anyone can write about your airfield if they wish - providing it meets Wikpedia's guidelines for notability and sourcing etc - and anyone can edit articles as they see fit. The community, by discussion and consensus, gets to decide what the content of an article should be. If you think there is something wrong with the current content of an article, you should discuss it on the article's Talk page. And if you believe it should be deleted, please provide some reasons here based on Wikipedia policies -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if there is any misinformation in the article that you believe is dangerous to pilots or to the public, please identify it and we can get it corrected or removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if any pilot put themselves in a dangerous situation as a result of believing any hypothetical future addition of fake navigational details on this article which had been added by a vandal and escaped the usual vandal patrols, even though these fake details would not be available in any of the sources usually used by pilots, I daresay the pilot has themselves to blame. We don't delete Trepanning because of the risk that an enthusiastic reader might drill a hole in the wrong place. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable and failing WP:GNG. As it appears to be a private field not marketed to the public (save for the fly-in) then per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability Any unattended airport or any privately-owned airport not open to the public and not marketed in public are generally not assumed to be notable. As for the safety claim for "ownership" of the article I find it ridiculous. Any pilot that would plan a trip solely using Wikipedia doesn't deserve to hold a license in the first place. Ravendrop 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently fails the notability criteria as it is PPR only. No indication that the airfield has any notable history which would push it above the criteria. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline as I could find no significant coverage about the airfield in reliable sources. The WikiProject Airports notability suggestions referred to above also suggest it should not be regarded as notable. I haven't seen a valid keep rationale here yet - but notability isn't everything so if someone comes up with one I would be happy to reconsider my vote.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2011 (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.