Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviostart

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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aviostart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see evidence that this is a notable business, meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Jet Aircompany
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Charter

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airline companies are generally notable. There is coverage online and in both English and Bulgarian (I have added a link for this at the top of the AfD) that arguably satisfies GNG in GBooks, GNews and elsewhere. This being Bulgarian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Bulgarian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Bulgaria, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Airline companies are generally notable." Even if it's true, that's an observation, not a rule.

If a topic is notable, then it's notable regardless of the notability of topics in the same category. If a topic isn't notable, then, likewise, its lack of notability isn't affected by the notability or non-notability of topics in the same category. Therefore, the argument "This topic is in category X, and topics in category X are generally notable" isn't a valid argument in evaluating the notability of a topic.

There isn't anything special about this article or this topic such that deleting it on the grounds of failing WP:N would be any more a violation of WP:ATD or WP:PRESERVE than the deletion of every other article that is removed on the grounds of a lack of notability. WP:ATD doesn't even apply here. Its thesis is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." A lack of notability cannot be resolved by improving a page, as it's a characteristic of the topic, not the content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a plausible (ie non-harmful) redirect violates ATD and R. Deleting mergeable content violates ATD and PRESERVE. Without exception, whether the topic is notable or not. We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article. There is such a fanbase and publishing industry for all things aeroplane related that it is unlikely that an airline company would not receive significant coverage. I can think of an explanation of why there may be offline coverage (GBooks is, as far as I am aware, not digitising the contents of Bulgarian libraries and seems to have a pronounced bias towards America and Britain because that is where it gets books from) and in the absence of a search for paper sources in a well stocked national or university library in Bulgaria, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a redirect here so your comment about WP:R is irrelevant.

How seriously do you expect us to take the proposition that the deletion of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that has occurred over all these years under the clearly laid out provisions for doing so is in violation of Wikipedia's rules? Fact: We routinely delete articles for failing WP:N.

"We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article." No, we do not accept the proposition that because one person has declared something, from his own impressions, likely to meet GNG that we declare it to meet GNG whether or not it actually does.

When someone questions the notability of a topic, telling us without evidence that you just assume the topic meets GNG isn't a helpful response. A useful response is one that shares findings that demonstrate that that topic meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

Frankly, I don't understand the idea that any time someone with an aviation background decides to buy a couple of planes to hire out, the business is automatically notable. Is every cab driver who goes into business for himself notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a potential redirect, so the section of ATD called ATD-R applies. R applies for the same reason. It is patent nonsense to suggest there is some kind of difference. Deleting plausible redirects or mergeable content for notability is a violation of policy. ATD, PRESERVE and R clearly say so in express and unambiguous words. If such deletions are taking place on a large scale, it indicates that there is a large WP:CIR problem. The rest of your comments are twisting my words and trying to put words into my mouth. I said nothing about my impressions, I said such topics were objectively statistically likely to satisfy GNG. I did not say that I assumed that the topic satisfied GNG. I said that the sources that come up when you search Google for "Aviostart" and its transliteration into Cyrillic script satisfy GNG (unless one subscribes to a deletionist interpretation of GNG that seeks to maximise the minimum level of coverage required), and that I assumed that there is more coverage offline (ie enough to satisfy even a more deletionist interpretation of GNG). There is no comparison between an airline company and a taxi firm due to the relative expense and rarity of airliners, and the absence of a similar fanbase for taxis. The combined cost of the aircraft listed in the article is something like £11 million (at 1981 prices of an aircraft produced till 2002) plus $8 million. That isn't considering all the other costs, such as enormous quantities of fuel. Running an airline is the preserve of the super rich. Any middle class person could by one taxi. Even a sizeable fleet of taxis wouldn't cost anything approaching that figure. How many cab drivers have twenty to thirty million dollars or more to buy vehicles for a business? (I may be seriously underestimating that because some of the figures I have don't account for inflation). I can see a particularly large fleet of 105 taxis (including vans and mini buses) on sale for £750k right now. You would not get one airliner for that. And there is, as I say, little interest in taxis. Massive jet aircraft like airliners are as glamorous as Hollywood. Taxis are not glamorous at all, probably because most people own cars. There is no comparison. James500 (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you should give your interpretation of particular guidelines some reconsideration when it leads to the conclusion that gross violations occur routinely, that every person who has ever enacted the deletion of an article on Wikipedia is guilty of them, and that, somehow, you are the only person to be aware of it after all this time. The fact that there is a deletion procedure that this discussion is part of ought to make it clear, behind any possibility of confusion for you, that deletion of an article is a legitimate outcome of this process. If your interpretation is correct, well, hundreds of deletion discussions are active at this minute, so you might want to run and object to every one of them on the grounds that they are all a violation of the rules. Or else sound the alarm at an appropriate noticeboard that there is a whole operation going on in secret on Wikipedia that deletes hundreds of articles a day in violation of the guidelines, and that the creation of WP:AFD must have been an act of vandalism and that it must be expunged.

It is patent nonsense to note that guidelines on redirects apply specifically to redirects? What else? Do all the rules about biographies of living person also apply to office buildings? Do all the rules about lists apply also to articles that aren't lists? I guess everything is about everything, and all the qualifying language we see in the guidelines was put there just to perplex us.

"... and that I assumed that there is more coverage offline": Again, your assumptions aren't relevant. Coverage doesn't exist because James500 assumes that it does. If there is coverage, identify it.

I see no provisions anywhere in the guidelines that something is notable because lots of money is involved. Multi-million dollar transactions and operations seem to make a great impression on you, but they are routine and occur all the time without anyone taking note of them or even being aware of them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't what I actually said to you. Having given careful consideration to all your arguments for deletion, I find them all to be invalid in this particular case. James500 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article is a potential redirect to a list article is absurd, it's "not even wrong"; if accepted it would apply to every article on Wikipedia and we could never AfD anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely ignoring ATD would be WP:RANDYish. That said, there are many things that cannot be redirected, such as duplicate articles at implausible titles. If someone was to create a second article at, say, "Aviosmarty" we could not redirect it to the list, because there is no airline in Bulgaria with that name. Even a real thing might have no plausible target for redirection. There is no list of blades of grass to which someone could redirect every blade of grass in his garden. Likewise, some content is not mergeable (such as unverifiable content or content that violates NOT). So there is plenty of scope for deletion even if we follow ATD to the letter. The point is that since this topic is already included in the informational list, and is clearly due weight there, and generally satisfies the criteria of R, it is reasonable, and indeed compulsory under ATD, to redirect it, merging such content as is suitable. James500 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Bulgarian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If an organisation satisfies GNG, it does not have to satisfy ORG. Both the introduction to N, and ORG itself, say so. ORGDEPTH is basically an incorrectly marked essay that failed to obtain consensus for inclusion in GNG itself. It only applies to topics that fail GNG but would otherwise satisfy ORG, of which there are probably none, due to the poor drafting of ORG (although it was possible for a topic to satisfy eg WP:NGO without satisfying GNG, before the wording was tampered with recently without consensus). This has been discussed many times at the appropriate venue, and there has always been clear consensus that SNG cannot restrict GNG, they can only restrict themselves. James500 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic also grossly fails WP:GNG, which states that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail,'. No such sources have been provided and Google provides none either, we have to base this on the evidence provided by the sources, not on wriggling and wikilawyering. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that the coverage that Google provides is not significant. I don't agree. And for the record, in view of the arguments you make below, GNG requires neither multiple sources, nor that the coverage in individual sources (where there is more than one), as opposed to the sum total of the coverage in all the sources taken together, be significant. And it is, as you put it, wriggling and wikilawyering to argue otherwise. Lots of little sources are as good as one big one. James500 (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am sorry but "Lots of little sources are as good as one big one" is quite wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: see arguments from James500 Arved (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remind us how these overcome WP:GNG's requirement for multiple independent sources providing in-depth coverage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At there very least make it a stub or link it to something related Dono talk 20:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Airline companies are not intrinsically or generally notable; at any rate this is an air charter company, not an airline. YSSYguy (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why? There are two votes based on unsubstantiated claims, five observing that it fails WP:GNG. How much greater proof of a negative do you want? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a Bulgarian company that transports cargo and occasional passengers using one of its 3 planes. It is no more inherently notable than a company that transports cargo and passengers using busses or limousines. JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (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.