Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was merge to List of airlines of New Zealand. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Napier

[edit]
Air Napier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, only refs given are one directory listing and one article with barely a passing mention. Essentially a WP:SPAM article to promote a company. Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of this deletion discusion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Air, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - As a scheduled service provider, I'm quite inclined to lean torwards notability and "keep". However I'm unfamiliar with "third level carrier" status, so I can't be sure if that isn't a "catchall everybody else" category or not that the NZ aviation authorities use. In addition, the fleet of aircraft as listed in the article shows no airliner or dedicated cargo types; rather, a variety of single- and twin-engined general aviation aircraft. In the absence of further explanation as to the status of the carrier, or references establishing notability despite its tiny status, I tip over to the 'delete' side. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of airlines of New Zealand is a potential merge candidate. Merge the content to a new section and redirect the current page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ahunt and my original PROD tag. Although Unscintillating has gone to some effort to add extra references to the article, they only serve to emphasise how far this falls short of the GNG, as the refs only contain passing mentions. The list of NZ airlines is purely a list, and Air Napier is already included, so there is nothing to merge. "Third Level Carrier" is a now infrequently-used old term for what is now called a regional airline. YSSYguy (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a redirect from Third Level Carrier to Regional airline. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "refs only contain passing mentions" is not based on WP:N or WP:GNG.  The term at WP:GNG is "significant coverage", where "significant coverage" is any coverage more than a "trivial mention".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This organization certainly is close to the notability that calls for a stand alone article.  You'd think that turning an airport into an international airport would make news across New Zealand and internationally too, but all I have seen so far is the two local newspaper articles.  There is nothing objectionable here that would call for deletion.  There is reliable material, and a certificated CAA "Air Operator" is a topic we somehow want in the encyclopedia.  The idea that this article was written for promotion is not based on analysis, as nobody would promote scheduled passenger service that no longer exists.  A key question here is, if this airline currently had scheduled passenger service, it would be without a doubt notable, but what should be done with it now?  There is much unsourced material, so much so that removing it might leave the article with only 5 sentences.  What happened to the company after they lost their international airport?  When and why did they drop their scheduled passenger service?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are confusing "I think this is an important subject" with what Wikipedia means by notability. You may think that this article should be kept, but on Wikipedia companies need extensive independent third party coverage beyond directory listings to be "notable" and clearly this subject doesn't have those references. As WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article", which is the case here. WP:CORPDEPTH explains this in much more detail. - Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are legitimate questions here, but given that we have three good independent sources, claiming these constitute "no" sources is IMO not advancing this discussion.  I have not made a !vote, so your telling me what my !vote is doesn't make sense.  Where is the guideline that says companies need "extensive" coverage to have a stand-alone article?  WP:CORPDEPTH states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."  The general rule is that once notable, always notable, but at this point we don't have the sourcing to demonstrate the notability of this company when it had scheduled passenger service.  Clearly we have reliable encyclopedic information, on a topic that clearly we want readers to be able to enter the name in the search box—the government of New Zealand in certificating this organization makes it so.  I see three choices, (1) find a good merge target, (2) fail to find a good merge target and keep the article as the best remaining alternative (and possibly call the close "no consensus"), and (3) find more sources and keep the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed listing the one option that we are here to discuss and that is deleting the article because the company is non-notable. No one has said we have "no sources", except you. WP:CORP sets the standard for notability for companies and it says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability ... Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories ... inclusion in lists of similar organizations." So let's go over the refs currently cited in the article and see if they amount to more than directory listings or passing mentions. The first ref is a government directory listing which lists all the companies in the country, the second ref is a govt directory listing of all air operator certificate holders in the country, the third ref is an article about air services which makes one passing mention of the company at the very end of the article. The three additional items that are in the bibliography, but not used as refs are similar. The first cited with a quote shows that the mention of the company is merely incidental to the article which is about another operator. The second article is about attempts to bring jet service to Hawkes Bay by other operators and once again only mentions the company as incidental to the story. The third article comes the closest to any listed as it deals with the the purchase of one Cessna 162 by the company, but the article reads more like a press release picked up by the local paper and still deals primarily with the aircraft and not the company. None of these establishes notability and the fact that these are all the refs that can be found shows that this company, like the majority of the world's small flying school and air taxi operators, is in fact non-notable in the Wikipedia use of the word and thus should not have an article on it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have only read through the second sentence of the above post, where I got to the sentence, "No one has said we have "no sources", except you."  Actually what I said was that there were three good independent sources.  The person that said incorrectly that there were no sources is the nominator:

As WP:N says "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article", which is the case here.

Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last sentence of the previous comment, "...the fact that these are all the refs that can be found shows that this company...is in fact non-notable...", seems again to say that the nominator thinks that refs must be "extensive", but this is not an argument based on policy/guidelines.  Further, it is a logical fallacy to argue from "facts" (the "fact" of research perfection) that can have no theoretical existence.  Another logical fallacy is the argument of the form ["insufficient evidence is evidence of the absence of sufficient evidence"].  Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definition of "passing mention" at WP:CORP, "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I am reposting a reply to the nominator I just added at Talk:Air Napier,

    A directory listing (or telephone directory listing as you call it) documents a data entry person noticing the text enough to get it printable or viewable, an airline certification is a regulatory process that involves bureaucrats conducting analysis and providing ongoing regulatory attention such that there will not be an airplane accident causing the politicians and societal leaders that fly on certificated airlines to demand explanations.

    Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and as I noted on Talk:Air Napier, all air carriers of all sizes are subject to government certification and oversight. Being listed on the government list of certified air carriers, does not by itself confer notability any more than a restaurant being listed as meeting inspection requirements by the local health authority does. It no more confers notability than being listed in the phone book, since all air carrers are certified or else they are not air carriers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge)  WP:N in the nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons."  Having had scheduled passenger service, this airline attracted worldwide attention.  The company led a successful effort to change a regional airport into an international airport.  I think that the sources currently are marginal in terms of amount of material, and the absence of answers for the questions I asked above may leave readers with the same questions.  But the six references from three sources are reliable and independent, and have depth in their detail.  Further, no good merge targets have been identified.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You stated "Having had scheduled passenger service, this airline attracted worldwide attention.  The company led a successful effort to change a regional airport into an international airport. ". If these things are correct why are there no third part refs that say this? Worldwide attention would mean it would be mentioned in newspapers all over the world - where are the refs? - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all this discussion, still the only facts clearly referenced in the article are their business registration details and that fact that it "was 1 of 185 organisations certificated under New Zealand Civil Air Authority Part 119 as an Air Operator". Not exactly WP:notable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this article has one of the most ridiculous bibliography sections I've seen: Air Napier#Bibliography. Mere snippets of mentions in the press are not a bibliography; they are called press clips. And I don't find much cite-worthy stuff in those given there; if you want to phrase that fact in term of wikirules, they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Those have been added by well-meaning editors trying to show notability, but, as you note, the very fact that they are the best sources available and make mere passing mentions only serves to underline how far short of WP:CORP the subject falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_Napier&oldid=1068821824"