Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Aeolus

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 Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Move to draft to see if additional sources bubble up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Aeolus[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)

Poorly sourced promo piece about a non-notable company; cannot find any proper RS references, fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage in Flight Global alone establishes notability, plus the other refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for the record, the "other refs" consist of the company's own LinkedIn article, something that looks like an academic paper (Aeronautics and Astronautics) but has been written "in collaboration with" the company, a promo piece (Leonardo Times) written by the company's marketing department, and one short paragraph (BNR.nl) that just about mentions the company. The Flight Global article is the best of the lot, and even that is an interview with the company's founder. Hardly WP:INDY WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, IMHO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - there is something to say for both sides. Flight Global is a well-respected authority, meseemeth, they will not offer free publicity to a soap bubble startup. Still there are precious few other references, and none really impressive. I must also say that, as a former regular visitor and follower of Antwerp Airport - witness my nickname! :) - I cannot remember hearing or seeing this operator ever mentioned. I think I would grant them the advantage of doubt, and let the article remain for now. But it does leave a lot of room for improvement. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft namespace. I disagree with Ahunt that the reference in Flight alone makes this topic notable; WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have articles on every business that somebody reliable once came across. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. It is also very new. So my suggestion would be to follow the toosoon advice and move it to Draft:Fly Aeolus, where it can be given a decent chance to accumulate sufficient references. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your feedback! I have added some sources that should be more credible. Please let me know how I can improve the article even more. Best regards (Talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea Struck (talk • contribs) [reply]

Move to Draft - Concur with Steelpillow. If this was a scheduled airline then it'd be notable, but it doesn't appear to be, so draft it until we can ~~construct additional pylons~~acquire additional refs to confirm notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft - I also concur with Steelpillow. In draft the other issues can also be addressed, before release to mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the author has added 4 additional secondary sources. Those appear to take care of RS concerns. This appears to be a perfectly legitimate going concern that is notable in its particular space of providing air taxi services.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft as per Steelpillow. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (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.