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. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews University Airpark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable privately owned airstrip. Best I could find from a BEFORE search was a one sentence mention which clearly confers no notability. I would also be ok with a redirect to Andrews University if others feel that is a worthwhile ATD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Michigan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Okay, this one isn't a clear keep, but it's a privately owned public access airport with a nontrivial amount of traffic and instrument approaches (example). Those terps are nontrivial. It's enough to make me think that sources might exist for depth of coverage- just not online. tedder (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to confess I'm a bit confused. Shady Lawn Field is also a privately owned public access airport, but there's pretty clear consensus it's not notable. Is there some sort of guideline about what level of traffic brings an airport to the point we might assume notability? I saw both in New Page Patrol, and from a basic examination both appeared non-notable to me. The Flying Magazine source from 2007 identified by gidonb does look promising; I think the problem was I searched for the page title with quotation marks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going by WP:GNG or any objective metric involving news, even with the sources below, it's going to be tough. But real quick, Shady Lawn is a short grass runway. So it's used by one or two planes owned by Shady Lawn. This airpark is privately owned but paved, longer, and more frequently used- anyone can fly in, it has a few dozen planes based there, gets a decent amount of traffic per year, and has those instrument approaches- meaning (roughly) that FAA has surveyed it and keeps a close eye on any construction nearby, towers/cranes, and so forth. Those instrument procedures, even basic GPS ones like this, are a big deal and mean it's published in navigation charts and airfield listings. I'm not arguing GNG or SIGCOV or anything here- just giving a comparison between the two. And like I said on Shady Lawn, I have no idea where to draw the line on notability of airfields, Shady is an obvious delete, this one probably leans slightly towards delete. tedder (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As tedder notes, this is a public access airport. These facilities have WP:SIGCOV, for example two pages in Flying (magazine) in 2007[1] and a paragraph in the same in 1974.[2] The airpark also had WP:SIGCOV in the South Bend Tribune[3] and there is one reference in the article that counts toward notability, since the flight school is part of the operations. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the creator of both pages mentioned here: while I can rationalize the issue with Shady Lawn, this airport is significantly used, is connected with academics a notable university, has a significant number of aircraft operations unrelated to the university, and has significant resources that parallel those available at many other notable airports. It also has a significant number of incidents that lead additional notable sources to the airport. This isn't some random airport that's just kinda there. It has a significant number of sources that lead to it and is worthy being kept on the site.--Slowtationjet (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  just went back in to add additional information about the airport as well as a number of sources unrelated to the airport or university. the airport has received significant coverage for various reasons over the years. certainly notable. Slowtationjet (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This airpark is unique due to its privately owned but accessible to the public status.TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That does not even come close to making it unique. Hundreds of airports work the same way, and most are non-notable. This is discussed above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2023 (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.