Talk:China Clipper flight departure site

Reverted truncation of article awaiting consensus

An editor has proposed deleting two-thirds of the material from this C class article because of alleged duplication of material in unspecified articles. I have reverted the change awaiting results of discussion and consensus on several alternative approaches. I'm not sure which articles are believed to contain duplicate material, but those I reviewed on related subjects appear to be less comprehensive than this article (rated as start or stub class in comparison to the C class rating of this article.) It would seem a reasonable alternative might be to merge those stub articles into this article with redirects. Alternatively, a certain amount of duplication may be appropriate background for a site commemorating a relatively short duration of service by a small number of aircraft with some relatively high-profile events at other points on the service routes. Potential duplication may involve articles on:

• aircraft types
• aircraft manufacturers
• aircraft models
• individual aircraft
• aircraft incidents, accidents or combat/battles
• aircraft terminals
• notable aircraft designers, pilots and/or passengers

Thewellman (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

China Clipper is the primary article for the aircraft at the moment - though I am pondering whether per individual aircraft notability guidelines the article should be rewritten to cover its loss as an aviation article. Martin M-130 is the main article for coverage of the aircraft type and the operational history of all three aircraft.

A secondary point would be the notability of the heritage site. It strikes me at a similar level of notability as a British Blue plaque. There seems to be a lot more on the subject than the heritage site itself - possibly because there really isn't much to say about a memorial stuck on the side of a building. Is there adequate coverage of the site/marker to meet the General Notability guideline of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, or is the coverage actually focussed on the Clipper flight itself? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This site was the San Francisco International Airport of its era (when SFO was known as San Francisco Municipal Airport.) Secondary source notability of the site endures in contemporary references as the Alameda Naval Air Museum. Alameda terminal facilities were used by the three Martin M-130 and several Boeing 314 flying boats for both Pan American World Airways and Alameda Naval Air Station operations.Thewellman (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Then logically the content actually belongs with the operations, the site being recognised as a historical landmark rather than having a separate article. Was there a specific civilian terminal (was it named - if so that would be a good focus for the article) or were operations actually within the then perimeter of the naval base?GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The site appears to have originally been part of San Francisco Bay filled shortly before Pan American World Airways started using it as terminal facilities. I suspect the site would have initially been identified with Pan Am's flying boat service similar to airline terminal facilities at present day airports, although the bay served in place of conventional runways. At about the halfway point of the flying boat decade, all of Pan Am's facilities were taken over for second world war military purposes.(some by the Japanese) This site, with adjacent filled wetlands, was designated Alameda Naval Air Station for the remainder of the flying boat decade. There may have been an intermediate period when Pan Am flying boat operations were evicted from Alameda by the Navy and operated from a terminal on Treasure Island (California); or perhaps Pan Am would have preferred Treasure Island to have their terminal closer to San Francisco upon completion of the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge. Treasure Island was taken over by the Navy and operated as an adjunct facility by NAS Alameda for the duration of hostilities; and this may have happened before the Pan Am terminal was established, because Navy activities on Treasure Island were not aviation-focused. Both Treasure Island and Alameda reverted to civilian control after the flying boat decade ended.Thewellman (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. What is the problem? Pixels don't take up much space. Why not have two articles with similar content? In haste, I am yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)