Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. If anybody would like to attempt a merge to Hastings Aerodrome as suggested below, let me know and I'll provide the source text to you. m.o.p 04:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Hawke's Bay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Air Hawke's Bay (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, WP:SPAM article. Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of this discussion has been made at WikiProject Aviation and at WikiProject Aircraft within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It doesn't seem is not credible that a government regulated "air operator" with 16 planes founded in 1928 in a place with a newspaper hasn't been noted.  Sources have been added, and as per WP:N, more are "likely" to exist in the newspapers since 1928.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The organisation seems notable enough. The article has enough information and references. I can't see why this article should be deleted. Ovalise 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (continuing from my previous comments) - Air Hawke's Bay is a notable New Zealand flight school and is widely known in the NZ aviation industry. Just because it is not internationally noted does not mean that the organisation is not notable and therefore it shouldn't be deleted. SnakeEyes 08:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - despite all the claims here that the organization must be notable and the addition of some refs to the article not one of them meets the requirements of WP:CORP and WP:GNG to establish notability. Careful reading of all the refs shows each one to be mere passing mentions or directory listings. You need better refs that have significant coverage to show that this organization is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply  WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  An example of a trivial mention is given in the footnote at WP:GNG, and additional examples are provided at WP:CORP.  Because the content from the sources are more than trivial mentions, the sources have "significant coverage", and therefore contribute to wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I was tempted to close this as Delete but leaving it for another 7 days to see if further sources can be unearthed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to relister, as per WP:Notability, section WP:NRVE, sources do not need to be "unearthed".  It is WP:Verifiability that has a strong sourcing requirement.  Also, a deletion argument must advance both that a topic and the content of that topic are objectionable, which not a single participant at this discussion has attempted.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now had to remove an anonymous blog that was added as a reference to this article, Please see WP:SPS to understand why these are not acceptable refs. The very fact that editors are resorting to these sorts of references seems to support the notion that this topic is non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment represents that the quality of contributions of newbies are one of the measures by which Wikipedians define wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  A healthy deletion discussion needs to understand WP:Deletion policy and the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion section therein .  As per WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion of a Wikipedia article removes the current version and all previous versions from public view."  This is an outcome for extreme cases, where both the material and the topic are objectionable, which is not the case here.  WP:ATD says,

    Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases....Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

    Unscintillating (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While those things are true, they are not applicable in this case, as this is not a content dispute. As you can see in the nomination this deletion discussion is about whether this topic meets the notability requirements to justify having an article on it or whether it is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable company. Just because something exists does not mean it should have an article in Wikipedia and so far the references in the article do not meet that minimum threshold to establish notability, which is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is both objectionable spam, and material that is not objectionable, editors can improve the article by editing options that do not require deletion tools.  I have removed one sentence that some might view as objectionable promotion.  Recognition by the government of New Zealand is not objectionable material.  16 airplanes and students coming from UAE and India is not a fly-by-night operation, recognition by Air New Zealand goes to establishing notability, and the great age of the institution speaks to the potential of being an even more interesting encyclopedia article.  There is no coherent plan here as to what to do with the encyclopedic material in this article and the topic other than to keep them, but given that this is a deletion discussion, all that really needs to be apparent is both that there is encyclopedic material and that we will somehow retain the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is simply that the article doesn't have independent third party references in sufficient depth that show notablity to the minimum standard to have a Wikipedia article on the company. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier, the nominator stated, "...on Wikipedia companies need extensive independent third party coverage beyond directory listings to be 'notable' ".  In response, I asked, "Where is the guideline that says companies need 'extensive' coverage to have a stand-alone article?"  The nominator did not respond, probably because there is no such guideline.  And yet also the nominator did not retract the statement.  So the nominator may well believe that coverage for Wikipedia articles should be extensive.  As to how this relates to the preceding comment, as long as the nominator defines "minimum standard" as "extensive coverage", this is not a policy/guideline based statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing demonstrates that this company passes WP:GNG as there simply is no in-depth third party sources. Ravendrop 22:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand that self-published sources can not be used as references. What I don't understand is this: another thing that proves AHB's notability is the fact that it operates a Doctor's Run from Hastings to Wairoa 5 times a week. Four sources - even though un-reliable, suggest that this charter operation happens. The very fact that as a student of AHB I know that this charter is run makes my blood boil that this charter operation can not exist on the AHB wikipedia page. It is another thing that helps to establish AHB's notability and yet it has quickly been blocked from doing so. SnakeEyesAndSissies (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are are confusing notability on Wikipedia with the fact that you think the flying school you are attending is important. It wouldn't matter if the company flies dozens of B-747s on scheduled runs every day, if there are no reliable third party references that have written about the company to the extent required by WP:CORP, then the company should not have an article on Wikipedia. What you know, that has not been documented in reliable third part references, is called original research and it is not acceptable because other people will disagree with what you think you know. You can add that this company runs five charters a week and someone else will come along and say "no they don't, they went out of business two years ago". The only way we can tell which one is right is through reliable third party references, which is why the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth". Without this requirement Wikipedia would be nothing more than a blog where people argue over their own version of WP:The Truth. The other factor here is that this company, while it surely does exist, is no different from ten thousand other flying school/air taxi operators around the world. It exists but there isn't much more to be said about it. My neighbour's cat exists and may even have its own You Tube channel, but it doesn't meet notability requirements and so should not have an Wikipedia article about it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge There's a rather obvious merge: since the company owns Hastings Aerodrome, which is I think clearly notable, the appropriate amount of content can be merged there. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 3 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_Hawke%27s_Bay&oldid=1068821813"