Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Eagle 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. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central Eagle Aviation[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage YSSYguy (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nine sources are given in the article, reproduced here in the same order: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Of these the last is the company's website and can be discounted. Of the remaining eight, the sixth is a PDF version of the fourth and the seventh is a PDF version of the fifth, while the eighth is an advertisement; so these three can be discounted. The first five sources do not contain significant coverage of the company. The first has only a passing mention of the company's owner and does not mention the company at all. The second is similar except the company name is included. The third is about Lake Eyre tourism and has only passing mentions of the company. The fourth is an article about the company's owner and again only has passing mentions of the company itself. The fifth has a bit more detail but is only a local paper and does not constitute "widespread coverage" on its own. YSSYguy (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for the sources from The Weekly Times (your nos. ~~5 & 6~~ 3 & 4) I would say that the airline has more than a passing mention. However, it is also not a particularly detailed mention, so I agree that notability is a bit lacking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Weak delete. These sources[10][11][12][13] in the article show a level of local notability, but we usually require more than local notability to have an article on a company, per WP:CORPDEPTH. The Weekly Times is a bit of an odd case, though - it is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Limited and based in Melbourne, but targets rural communities and farmers. I don't think this is quite enough to prove notability, and I would prefer to see one decent national general-interest source before recommending the article be kept; however, I am open to persuasion if others think differently. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In reading all the refs it looks like there is enough notability for a biography on Louise Oldfield, the owner, but the company only gets passing mentions and so fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (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.