Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflex–Andover 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflex–Andover Airport

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Original research. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article complies for inclusion based on WP:GNG WP:NGEO, and nice to think that an FAA document--A US government record--isn't considered a reliable source. If you scratched the surface instead of jumping the gun (a journalist even an exjournalist would never...), you would see in my sandbox other New Jersey Forest Fire Service articles (including one on NJFFS almost prepped for namespace), so do you not think I would be developing this? And just where is the original research? JackTheVicar (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont see why these airport articles keep getting nominated. There are reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No Reliable sources? Original research? Did the nominator read the article and look elsewhere for sources as required by WP:BEFORE? There's more than enough here and available online to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you've "BeenAroundAWhile", you should know better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources definitely exist and are used as references. Ownership by the NJ forest fire service and the existence of a flight academy based out of 12N satisfy WP:AIRPORT's notability guidelines. "Pepper" @ 00:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems BeenAroundAWhile was doing a little original research of their own to conclude no reliable sources exist, demonstrating a reason why we have WP:NOR.--Oakshade (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is notable per notability guidelines, its sources are reliable government documents from the State of New Jersey and the Federal Aviation Administration, and has contained WP:NOR since the day I created the article. This trial balloon does not fly. Canglesea (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (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.