Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barq Aviation

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barq Aviation[edit]

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

Corporation does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete this page. It is accurate and not breaking any rules. Removing this page would be removing a perfectly good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportExpert (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charter operations are not usually notable, and I'm not seeing any indication here that the general notability guideline is met for this air charter operation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all articles about charter airlines are not worthy of a Wikipedia article?--AirportExpert (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that unlike a scheduled airline, which is considered to be notable because it operates as a scheduled airline, a charter operation must meet the general notability guideline through verifiable coverage in reliable sources, which isn't evident here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reasoning for wishing to delete this article. It is accurate and had no lies or flaws.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep articles because they are accurate, it keeps them because the subjects are notable. There is not enough coverage in reliable sources to evidence that Barq Aviation is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a database of information, signifigant or not. There are thousands of sites such as this one on wikipedia, and they are just improved, not removed, So why do you want to remove Barq Aviation so badly?--AirportExpert (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

This is where you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a databse, and to be covered in it information must be significant. The "thousands of [other] sites" are not relevant to whether or not Barq Aviation is notable. I don't want to remove it "so badly", it would be my preference that it not be removed at all. But if it cannot be verified through reliable sources that Barq Aviation is notable, Barq Aviation cannot have a page on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to find reliable sites for Barq Aviation, then will the deletion go away?--AirportExpert (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

If you can find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, as explained here, then the AfD would likely be closed, once it has run its course in a week, as Keep, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this needs to be sources that actually discuss Barq, not a basic profile site that's database driven. READ the page The Bushranger linked for you. The key part is significant coverage. Something like "A flight from Barq has landed at this airport" is not significant. Ravensfire (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and especially not WP:CORP which requires multiple independent third party refs to show notability and thus keep this article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a company that owns a few airplanes. JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create List of airlines in Jordan, which may satisfy WP:LISTN. This does not seem to satisfy WP:CORP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, list of airlines of Jordan already exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, it does, doesn't it? Well, in that case, maybe we should redirect it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because although they just own a few planes, that is how all charter companies work, and there are many charter airline pages on Wikipedia.--AirportExpert (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Just a note, but for your opinion here to carry any weight you will have to show how this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. What you have written is pretty much WP:ILIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article are either the company itself or utterly trivial. One of them (repeated twice) doesn't even support what it's being used for as it shows the aircraft transferred. Searching google found absolutely nothing useful. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence they are notable. Just because they rent and charter aircraft doesn't make them notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ They are notable for being one of the last airlines to operate the tristar.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
- Please note you're only allowed to !vote once in an AfD. Also, that is not a claim to notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it not a claim to notability? --AirportExpert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
    - Operating the last examples of a once-dirt-common airliner that is only recently retired and is still operated by other operators does not establish notability. Now, if they were still operating Lockheed Constellations, that would be a claim to notability. (Also, please properly indent your replies, it is difficult to follow the flow of a conversation otherwise.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2014 (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.