Barber Airport: I was unable to find any superior coverage searching online and on Google Books.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Ohio .  signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ’’’Keep’’’ There are multiple quality secondary sources from a variety of established, respected aviation publications that must not be ignored.  There is worth in keeping the article up to be further expanded.  At the very least move it to draft space to be edited for a time before being republished, but I don’t think it’s worth even that considering that the article has already been reviewed and approved with the sources it has.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet ( talk • contribs ) Which sources?  If you're talking about the ones currently in the article, they're not secondary sources, they're database entries with little-to-no analysis of the airport.  Meanwhile, the page was marked reviewed by me, because I brought it to AfD; that is in no way an argument against deletion, that's just the NPP flowchart --once something is brought to AfD the review is completed and further decisions are up to the course of discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SkyVector, AOPA, Flying Magazines, FlightAware, Visit Canton, and Canton Airsports are not databases.  They are fully third party organizations/companies that maintain and publish information and articles about airports such as Barber.  The only source that could be considered a database is PlaneCrashMap, which pulls information from the NTSB, which itself is a third party, independent source unrelated to the airport.  Same with AirNav with FAA information.  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have also added additional notable third-party sources to the article Slowtationjet ( talk ) 05:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The cited sources you refer to are not secondary prose coverage, they're metadata objects (e.g. [20] ) that don't contribute to establishing notability.  The only cited source that begins to meet this is the Canton Rep article , which is a fairly weak start given that it's a local paper and coverage there is largely dependent on an interview with the owner.  Coverage of accidents happening near the airport is not coverage of the airport itself unless the articles in question devote significant attention to the airport's role in the crash or other history.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ’’’Keep’’’ Article passes the sniff test, not sure what you're complaining about.  Also has had three notable enough accidents, which is good enough justification in and of itself...  Windowcleaner4 ( talk ) 17:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo bons mots 21:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Llajwa ( talk ) 21:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Would other participants be open to an ATD?  For example, this could be mentioned in a sentence at Alliance, Ohio#Transportation .  gidonb ( talk ) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That sounds good to me, I think the sources support that level of coverage.  signed, Rosguill talk 01:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To clarify, that would mean making the page a redirect to the page on the city of Alliance?  Slowtationjet ( talk ) 03:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely, a merge now includes a redirect by default.  No longer a need to write merge and redirect.  That's now already implied.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Alliance, Ohio#Transportation .  About one sentence.  Can include a few refs as long as this one is included.  This ATD has the support of the nominator , the interest of the only keep sayer , and hopefully the only delete respondent will join as well! gidonb ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This makes sense to me.  Llajwa ( talk ) 13:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I also support it Slowtationjet ( talk ) 06:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (highly selective) into Alliance, Ohio#Transportation per Gidonb.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 20:23, 30 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge