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. The relevant issue here is notability, as defined by the community-adopted guideline WP:GNG, so valid comments must discuss how this article does or does not meet that standard. I had to discount numerous opinions (mostly "keep"s) because they did not address this standard or misapplied it. Such comments included "Not a notable airfield and the club failes to be notable", "it nonetheless deserves to remain", "it doesn't seem to be a hoax or libelous", "seems to be notable because it meets WP:RS", "there's nothing too terribly wrong with it", "fails to be notable in any possible fashion" and "it has the possibility of independent sourcing. That's all WP:GNG requires" (whereas in fact actual sourcing is required). The opinions that remain under consideration establish a consensus that the subject's coverage does not rise to the level required by WP:N. The new references referred to in the last comment (a Google Maps link and a link to a patent) are very unlikely to change that assessment. Sandstein 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
