Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Jet Aircompany

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. Sandstein 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Jet Aircompany[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No coverage meeting WP:GNG. No notability under WP:CORP. No indication of significance in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviostart
→ 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 English that arguably satisfies GNG, but we need to know the Latvian name of this operator as well. This being Latvian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Latvian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Latvia, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 18:42, 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) 18:53, 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. James500 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 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 Latvian 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 Latvia, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discussing a redirect here. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day, in accordance with the very explicit and detailed provisions for doing so, so you might need to tune your perspective that doing so is a gross violation of grand principles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. James500 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that we aren't discussing a redirect, or you disagree that hundreds of articles are deleted every day despite your notion that this is a gross violation of Wikipedia's rules? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here, which deals with the essence of your arguments. It would have been better to either bundle the three nominations or run them one at a time, instead of forcing me to repeat myself twice. James500 (talk) 22:39, 29 February 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) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. I think our general practice has been to keep articles about scheduled airlines. I strongly support that precedent, but this company's website seems to indicate that this is solely a charter airline, and in general I think charter airlines have been required to show they meet GNG. If I've missed something about scheduled flights, please let me know. Otherwise I find nothing in English to support notability here; if there's something in Latvian I'm certainly willing to reconsider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Latvian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 3 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.