Deletion of Stoney Point Airfield

Comment: per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chadwick Airport. If people don't engage in discussion at  or  then these type of 'not notable' nominations could go on forever with quite variable results depending on who turns up. Just agree on a guideline and stop using wikipedia as a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:AIRPORT||WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: Why?  Please give details.  Just saying "not notable" is not a reason or argument as explained in 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JNN)

Comment: Not |notable. Wikipedia is OTDIR|not a directory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTDIR)

Comment: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."''  The FAA airport registration and the other lists are a primary source and there is no evidence of coverage in reliable secondary sources.  The homeowner's associaton is not independent of the subject.  A mention in an all-inclusive lists is not "significant coverage."  , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: An FCC directory listing does not confer inherent notability on a strip of grass a few people own and use as a private air strip. Fails  due to lack of substantial covereage in multiple reliable and independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: non-notable per , no significant coverage from reliable sources. Minor, non-notable self-references only. Having an FAA location ID and the presence of 5010 data alone does not establish notability. There are 250 turf runways in the state of Georgia alone, and many thousands more worldwide, they are not all notable no matter how many fish frys they have
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a private grass strip for which interest appears to be mostly of directory or routine regulatory nature.  coverage is not there and the strictly-private nature of the field makes the likelihood of finding RS per inherent notability a very long stretch. Outside the homeowners' private use, this is just slightly more significant than a golf course
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)