Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elitaliana (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elitaliana[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Consensus in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 8#Elitaliana was that the previous AfD needs to be redone. I personally have no opinion and no stance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found out about this in the DRV, I voted to relist due to the poor quality of discussion, but I don't think the sources in the article or the sources presented at the last AfD pass WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor who originally nominated it for deletion, I have yet to see examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My main analysis here is that Elitaliana is the company that operates search and rescue, medical evacuation, and police helicopter services for a number of regions within Italy, particularly Calabria, as well as providing similar services in Bosnia and Kosovo. This of course is not by itself a reason to keep, but it should hint to editors that it ought to be notable so we need to look in detail for sources (but of course still delete if they cannot be found). In addition to those in the previous AFD I have found the following:

- A 2017 piece in the Corrie della Serra (an Italian national paper) where the reporter visits a helicopter base operated by Elitaliana and interviews various personnel there. This appears to be significant coverage based on the machine translation.

- A 2009 story in Strill.it (apparently a WP:NEWSORG covering Calabria nb., Calabria is a region of Italy, equivalent to a US state/Canadian province, and as such this is not 'local' coverage per WP:AUD) regarding an interruption in Elitaliana's services. This directly discusses the company and appears to be WP:SIGCOV, based on machine translation.

- A 2016 story in the Corriere della Calabria covering (based on machine translation) a court case lost by Elitaliana. Whilst of course coverage of the case per se is not coverage of Elitaliana, the story does discuss the company as well as the case. This amounts to significant coverage (just about) since it tells us that Elitaliana managed the helicopter rescue services for Calabrian hospitals.

- Coverage by VISTA, apparently an Italian national news agency. Not being able to speak Italian, I am an uncertain of the level at which this discusses the company.

- Coverage by DIRE, apparently an Italian national news agency. Not being able to speak Italian, I am an uncertain of the level at which this discusses the company.

- This 2014 article by Meridiana Notizie, apparently a WP:NEWSORG covering the Italian region of Lazio, also appears to give significant coverage based on the machine translation.

I think there may be other sources that could be discussed in Kosovan/Bosnian press but, except for coverage about a press conference at the Italian consultate in Pristina (which probably isn't Sigcov), I can't find much - but then these are hard sources to search. I understand why editors are voting delete on this but I think it still just about scrapes over the line based on the sourcing produced so far and that on the page. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Italian fairly well and am under the impression that these sources fall short of demonstrating notability. The first source barely says anything about the company, the second and third sources do not appear to include a byline, which throws their reliability into doubt. Going into their content a bit more, source 2 doesn't say anything about an interruption of service, it's about an agreement settled between Elitaliana and the government of Calabria for Elitaliana to provide emergency helicopter rescue services. 4 and 5 are primary sources, interviews of an Elitaliana official and pilot (respectively) and such would not count toward notability even if they did discuss the company in detail (they don't). The final source is actually decent and briefly details the company's emergency rescue services; if there were several more sources like this, I would reconsider my vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find more when I get more time - however, if we do have one region-level media reference giving significant coverage, then don't the WP:AUD objections to the aviation-press references raised in the last AFD fall away? WP:AUD requires that at least one instance of coverage be national/state-province-whatever, and I think we've got that. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weak, but there's enough here, with the references found by FOARP, and also bearing in mind that this is in a reason where WP:CSB needs to be considered as well. It needs a serious grammar sweeping, but that's not something to cause deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per FOARP's sources. Amisom (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is still split, it needs relisting - including any consideration from the earlier !voters who haven't yet commented on the additional sources either way
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Struggled a bit on this one... but eventually came down on the side of 'Keep' per FOARP's sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (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.