Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomsburg Municipal Airport
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 keep. The consensus is that even with the limited information it is sufficient for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloomsburg Municipal Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article on Bloomsburg Municipal Airport contains little notable information, and almost all of that could easily incorporated into the underdeveloped Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King jakob c (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An article being a stub is not a proper rationale for deletion. Airport not only serving community of about 15,000, but also the county of Columbia with a population of about 65,000 is easily worthy of inclusion. Airport-specific content like runway length and standard FAA links would be out of place for the Bloomsburg city article. --Oakshade (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps consolidate it into a single section? Each of the sections (except the lead section) contains less than one sentence. King jakob c (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of length of a different article has nothing to do with the notability of this topic. If you'd too expand that article, go ahead, but content of this one is out of place one.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps consolidate it into a single section? Each of the sections (except the lead section) contains less than one sentence. King jakob c (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A Merge to Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air would retain the information and consolidate it all in one place. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania#Air per User:Northamerica1000 and nominator with no prejudice against recreation. The official website according to the article does not exist and I am not sure if it ever existed, which drastically kills its notability. It makes no sense to have a stand-alone article when there is not enough information for a stand-alone one. All of its content can easily be turned into a single paragraph. I searched this airport on many search engines and very little good info pops up and if you ask anyone who is not from Bloomburg what this airport is, they will have no idea. 01:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't exist?[1]. A vast majority of articles are about topics that people have no idea existed. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not grounds to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most airports are notable and with a history back to the 1930s and use during the second world war. The fact that the article is a stub doesnt prevent it being developed in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there is limited information on the history of the Bloomsburg municipal airport. I searched both "Bloomsburg Municipal Airport" and "Bloomsburg Municipal Airport History" and there's nothing except passing mentions and databases on at least the first 3 pages for both searches. King jakob c (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Airport in use since 1930s is clearly notable enough to sustain an article. That it needs improvement and the fact that there are few online sources is not a reason to delete. Look to historic local newspapers and you'll surely find the info to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Airports are notable and a merge with the city article would be inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (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.