Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Wyalong Airport

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 — Caknuck 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Wyalong Airport

West Wyalong Airport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable place with little content Marlith ^T/C 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question Wouldn't all Airports (not airfields) be inherently notable? Fosnez 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer Not any more than a train station or a bus station. Inherently notable is not an excuse for writing nothing at all in an article. Mandsford 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply I would assert that all train stations are notable (for history and other purposes) - bus shelters, not really, bus transfer hubs, maybe. Also, writing nothing at all in an article is no excuse for deletion. Fosnez 02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd assume that all regular airports are notable, but if this is a dirt runway then you probably can't expand the article. Which would make it non-notable. MarkBul 02:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a small rural airport in NSW which currently has a couple of flights a week from Regional Express. However, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the service will stop operating next week. [1]. In that case, it would be a general aviation airport. If not kept, it should be merged with our article on West Wyalong, New South Wales.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Airports and significant public infrastructure is are notable. This airport has ICAO and IATA codes, scheduled air service, 1 asphalt and 1 gravel runway [2], car rental services, etc. The info already in the stub has value and is verifiable. • Gene93k 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the stub article with basic info along the lines of other gen. aviation articles written. • Gene93k 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand because of above sources. Fosnez 04:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as airport as significant public infrastructure is notable as above. KTC 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all airports are notable, and this article has been improved based on sources. --Canley 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the previous two even if they are rural airports or small airports.--JForget 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Conflicted Keep Because, contrary to my usual views, I believe almost every major airport is always notable. I can't believe I just said that. i ^said 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Airports, even small ones, are very significant to local (or beyond) infrastructure. --Oakshade 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Airports (and train stations for that matter) are significant nodes in a country's transportation infrastructure. That this airport once had commercial flights adds further to the notability, and the end of this service has no bearing since notability is permanent. The fact that this news article is provided as a source demonstrates that independent attention has been given to the airport. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant node of a region's transportation infrastructure, the current sources are fine. Burntsauce 16:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- per Sjakkalle. - Longhair\^talk 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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.