Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwijet (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 February 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Kiwijet[edit]

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

The first AfD discussion back in 2007 was closed as no consensus. Today, the situation is quite clear: Kiwijet is a proposed company which never came into being, and as such I cannot find any reason why the article should be kept in an encyclopedia. The page content is pure WP:CRYSTAL: just a series of product announcements. Further, the subject fails WP:CORP: All references that can be found are either self-published press releases, or mere rephrasings of these press releases by other media. Hardly enough to speak of significant, independent coverage. FoxyOrange (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Scoop articles are press releases, the others aren't. It appears to have received reasonably significant coverage, and notability is not temporary. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Hawaiian717. Does it improve our coverage of New Zealand aviation to delete this verified information about a failed, but still notable venture? No, it doesn't. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. A non-existent company that has previously failed to provide any goods or services. The page survives on speculation and press release coverage. Funny ^Pika! 22:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly how is a failed proposed company notable? Additionally, neither Jetconnect or Qantas bother to mention it indicating it is most likely an orphan, again indicating a lack of sufficient notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Through passing the GNG. Notablity does not vanish when the proposal falls through. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 05:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG through coverage in multiple reliable sources; Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and above. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - once was, so it will always be. Yet another notable corporate failure. Stalwart111 09:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say it's barely notable. Currently, there are only two useable sources on that page: TVNZ stating the proposal [1] and the New Zealand Herald discussing investment [2]. In all, this is actually a take on one event - the failed launch of an airline. As per WP:N, it doesn't really matter if it's notable if it fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Funny ^Pika! 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true, but there are a couple of other usable sources like this (though also from TVNZ), this (though also from the NZ Herald), this from the Otaga Daily Times and this from Channel 9. Obviously the first two don't do much for notability because they are from the same sources as existing ones, but the ODT and 9 ones should be okay. I agree the scoop ones aren't worth much, but what's wrong with the Brisbane Times/Dominion Post one? Stalwart111 21:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem like routine announcements to me, like FoxyOrange mentioned in his nomination. There is no in-depth analysis of the company itself, just a rehash of PR and Weil's (CEO) quotes. They just go to prove that plans for the company existed, which does not necessarily make it notable. Would you care to comment on the WP:NOT issues? Funny ^Pika! 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I suppose my take is that NOTNEWS, to me, is about weeding out routine events that appear one day, make the news and then disappear never to be seen again. An encyclopaedia shouldn't cover every cat stuck in a tree or every car crash or every shooting (oh the dramas we've had with that one!). But I think we're talking here about more than a one-day story. It launched, it announced some plans, it withdrew those plans, it announced some new plans, withdrew those, changed some plans and then disappeared (or something). As one of the NZ Herald articles said, "...passengers will now have to wait to see if Kiwijet's Plan C becomes any more a reality than its aborted Plans A and B". The media covered what was an ongoing saga for a number of years including A, B and C. In my view, an emergency landing would be WP:NOTNEWS. The rise, up-and-down and eventual fall of an airline venture spanning several years is worth covering, I think. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's not a one-day story but business proposals are pretty routine. If you look closely at the dates you can see some sources overlap and cover the same story. To take the shooting analogy - you could argue that a specific shooting itself isn't routine with a different perpetrator, victim, location and weapon used each time, but the way shootings are reported is routine enough. There's nothing to say that this proposed airline made any lasting impact for it to have been notable. Besides Wikipedia is also not a collection of product announcements and rumours, which basically is what this article is. If this were a film it would've been hammered already. Funny ^Pika! 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have to say, I get where you're coming from and I think you and I are only marginally either side of the same very fine line. Announcements of new businesses happen every day and if this were one press conference where a couple of entrepreneurs announced something that was never heard of again then I'd be right where you are. What makes the difference for me is that they strung everyone along for so long with announcement after announcement and plan after plan to the point where journos started making jokes about it. That goes beyond routine news as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and for reference, we do have a Category:Unreleased films (some survive the hammer!) and, in fact, we also have Category:Proposed airlines. Stalwart111 07:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am bothered by the claims that this was either a "failed proposed company" or a "non-existent company". I see no reason to doubt that this company really existed, and the claims that it didn't exist IMO do more to discredit the !votes than advance the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood the context. If you look at the sources provided above you can see that this was a planned (i.e. proposed) airline (i.e. company), which no longer exists (i.e. failed or non-existent) [3]. Where I come from the term company can be used interchangeably with business, so the company (organisation) could have existed while the company (business) did not. Funny ^Pika! 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~This company never got off the ground.~~ This article has a photo of an ERJ 145 flying in Kiwijet livery. —rybec 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage this airline received was routine coverage of press releases, the fact that it never flew a flight is a good indication of it's lack of notability, maybe a one paragraph mention in an article on aviation in New Zealand. LGA _talk^edits 10:54, 28 February 2013 (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.