Talk:Nenana Municipal Airport

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airports

	Aviation portal This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the airport project.

Proposed merge from Ice pool

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no justification for merge and no support with one objection.

(Still no justification for merge from proposer.)

Oppose: I oppose the merge on the grounds that the merger User:Wtshymanski has a long history of merging articles with the sole intent and purpose of deleting large parts of them that he does not think belongs in his encyclopedia. (see [[1]] and [[2]] for more information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.70.84 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid objection to a merge. Have a look at the information on Wikipedia:Merging which suggests some ideas on merging articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid objection to you merging anything, as the RfC against you documents only too well. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) Why is the article titled "Ice pool" and then goes on to refer to "Ice Pool"? The latter appears to be the proper capitalization. It's also a title which could be easily confused by neophytes with the Nenana Ice Classic. 2) If the two are as closely related as they appear to be, I see no reason why not. The world isn't millions upon millions of islands unto themselves, yet it appears strange that Wikipedia continues to attempt to portray the world in such a fashion. See WP:PERMASTUB for where I'm going with this. Unless someone copies and pastes PD information which may exist on the airport's original WWII-era incarnation, neither article is of any practical use whatsoever beyond satisfying those who may wish to take credit for creating the article. Theoretically, as a municipal airport, the article could serve more purpose as a section of Nenana, Alaska than as a standalone article. 3) Some of what I'm reading in this conversation thus far borders on a personal attack.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge from Ice pool

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Overtaken by events - Ice pool deleted on notability grounds.

Individual non-directional beacons are not notable. There's at least one other Alaska-related usage of Ice [P|p]ool that already has an article. RadioKAOS has already explained why "permastubs" are bad ideas; if this NDB ever hits the level of attention implied by multiple reliable independent sources, an article can be made then. Until then, noting that an airport has an NDB is about as notable as noting it has flush toilets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: But how about doing the merge properly for a change.

Tag BOTH articles.

Allow a reasonable period for people to support or oppose. A few days is too short. Not everyone spends their entire leisure time editing Wikipedia. Some of us get out a bit and have a life. The editors likely to have comment may only log in every few days. A month might be considered reasonable (just) but I know of several people who think it should be much longer. This is not your encyclopedia (inspite of your obvious belief to the contrary (WP:OWNERSHIP).

If there is support, merge the article properly. The talk from the source article needs to be preserved on the target article talk page. A comment in an edit summary is an unacceptable way of doing this as it disappears into the noise. I am sure that someone as familiar with Wikipedia knows the correct way to do this (but why not have yet another look at WP:MERGE). 86.166.70.84 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I note that this has seen multiple attempts at merging, curiously from the very editor above who gave a good reason not to merge (?). A single NDB is, as he notes, not noteworthy in any way. There must be thousands of these things in the world. Are we to have an article about each one? Similarly the information from Ice pool should not be merged into this article, again because of the lack of notability. A cursory examination of a few articles on airports, both large and small, shows than no article bothers to mention anything about beacons located on or near the airport. I have consequently nominated Ice pool for deletion on the grounds of notability. I B Wright (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.