Talk:New Bedford Regional Airport

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Aviation: Airports

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 has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

Merger proposal

I propose that Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford be merged into New Bedford Regional Airport. I think that the content in Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford can easily be explained in the New Bedford Regional Airport article, and the airport article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Also, the Naval Auxiliary Air Facility article has only one source and may fail the Notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per multiple sources that exist online, and the fact that this was first an Army Airfield, and then a Naval facility, both of which are notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it's all the same place, and the NAAF doesn't exist any more. Lou Sander (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history on general notability standards for military installations, and I believe any move decision on this facility should be delayed until it can be seen if a consensus can be reached there. Army Air Forces use of the field also included fighter training, and from 1961-1964 the United States Air Force marked the field as a post attack recovery base and stationed a unit there. I disagree with the previous rationale as stated. Applying that standard would call for having not article on a number of closed military airfields that are more notable than the civil airports they have become. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that fails the general notability guideline of significant coverage in reliable sources is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, regardless of any standard established at WikiProject Military history. Articles that fail the GNG, such as this one, should be merged into closely related notable articles or deleted. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the many very small towns and Census Designated Places whose only coverage is in U.S. Census publications? And aren't those publications really primary sources? I'm guessing that not may people would be in favor of deleting their articles. Lou Sander (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles that do not meet the GNG exist, doesn't mean we shouldn't consider deleting or merging this one. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Bedford Regional Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]