Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights (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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 11:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Hamsa Ultralights[edit]

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

Despite the longevity of this article, it doesn't cite any significant coverage in reliable sources. Directory entries don't establish notability, nor do brief mentions of products made by the company. I have been unable to find any in-depth company profiles (which would directly establish notability of the company), or even any in-depth reviews or description of the company's products (which could be used to imply notability). ^Bongo_matic 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite a 30 year existence of the company, claims of being the largest in India, one gnews hit says it all [1]. fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Notification of this deletion discussion has been made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, within which scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights still stand - this remains India's largest light aircraft manufacturer, having produced thousands of aircraft. I believe the refs currently listed do show notability, but it will also have multiple complete entries in Janes All The World's Aircraft which is the final say in aircraft manufacturer notability. Our central library has a large collection of these and as soon as I can get downtown I will add complete references to show notability to anyone's satisfaction. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

You write "I believe the refs currently listed do show notability". Which one or ones? Explain why.
Per Listing in a directory, or any list intended to be complete, doesn't demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a point-by-point defence of the existing refs, I intend to, instead, supply a quantity of new refs that will unquestionably establish notability. I am hoping to be able to do that later today, once the weather allows the trip. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay I made the trip to the central library and obtained complete references from some of the latest editions of Janes, which, as predicted contain complete and detailed profiles on the company and its aircraft. I have added these and made some additions to the article based on them. Admittedly the article is now somewhat over-referenced, but there can be no contention about notability, so please withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can be contention about notability. Listings in directories do not confer notability. See footnote 5 in WP:N. ^Bongo_matic 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you let this run to its inevitable conclusion, but are you saying that Janes All The World's Aircraft does not confer notability? - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A publication that purports to provide "exhaustive technical detail on more than 1,000 civil and military aircraft currently under development or being produced by more than 600 companies in 48 countries" does not confer notability to each of those 1,000 aircraft and 600 companies. The word "exhaustive" is relevant here—Wikipedia doesn't strive for exhaustion, but to cover notable topics. ^Bongo_matic 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't consider that Janes is a WP:RS that shows subject notability then you really need to bring that up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think you may find some disagreement on that point. Janes is widely considered in the aviation, naval, defence and intelligence communities to be the premier source of reliable information. Despite what you may have read it does not cover all aircraft, just ones that the editors consider notable enough for publication. If Janes does not confer notability then I am afraid we will have to delete almost all aircraft manufacturer and aircraft type articles on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it states at RS/N, the noticeboard is about discussing sources' reliability for verification purposes. If you read the above-referenced footnote at WP:N, it states that:

not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability ... despite [being in] reliable sources.

The hand-wringing about deleting "almost all aircraft manufacturer" articles seems somewhat hyperbolic. An instructive (if not terribly statistically significant) review of the other two articles in Category:Aircraft manufacturers of India gives rise to the opposite conclusion, as they appear to have received significant coverage in sources that are not directory-like. ^Bongo_matic 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an established manufacturer of ultralight aircraft. The sourcing issue can be addressed, and Ahunt has stated that he intends to do this. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company does merit to be mentioned on these pages. The article could perhaps do with some improvement, but so do many. I hate to see the negativism of "it is no good, away with it!" - what we really want is a constructive approach like "this article is less than perfect, what can we do to improve it?". Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD discussion has been pointed out at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. While this is permissible under WP:CANVAS, it clearly skews participation in the discussion, as can be seen by the above three opinions (offered without supporting evidence and demonstrating a particular POV). ^Bongo_matic 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, notifiying Wikiprojects germane to the article is not canvassing or inappropriate. Personally, I don't see why the name of the nominator is necessary. My arguments are based on the existance for a number of years of a major manufacturer of microlight and ultralight aircraft. Notifications should be neutrally worded though. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:AfD#Notifying_interested_people says "WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." In this instance the notice placed on both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft was "This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion for a second time, in this instance by User:Bongomatic. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights (2nd nomination)." I also placed a notice here (see above) to let other editors know that the notices had been placed. This practice is not only permissible, it is encouraged by AFD policies, so that articles in a particular area of WikiProject expertise cannot go though a stealth deletion process without editors with interest and expertise in the area in question being consulted. If you think that alerting editors with expertise in the field "clearly skews participation in the discussion" then that really calls into question the reason for the AFD in the first place. AFDs are commenced for only one reason, because Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject nominated. If the nominator truly believes that the nomination is for that reason and has made a good case for deletion on that basis, then they should welcome participation by editors in the relevant field because obviously they would agree with the deletion nomination and that is precisely why the AFD policy openly encourages the notification of WikiProjects in the relevant area . - Ahunt (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comment that has elicited these impassioned defenses didn't suggest there was anything wrong with the notices—in fact, it specifically mentioned that the practice is consistent with policy. The fact that notification to the projects skews participation in the AfD is obvious and uncontroversial—just as it the fact that it is permissible. ^Bongo_matic 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is clearly permissible and there is nothing wrong with it, then why bring it up? - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the logic there? The comment wasn't at ANI or any other place to lodge complaints for problematic edits or violations of policy. Factors other than impressible behavior may be relevant to other commentators or closers. ^Bongo_matic 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your intention in bringing up a policy-encouraged practice was to alert the closing admin to disregard, or at least weight-down, the opinions of members of these two WikiProjects? - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments from the first nomination, no doubt it could do with more sourced content but article improvemnet not deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, sources is needed. But you don't just delete an article cause it not perfect. --KzKrann (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Add more sources and relevant information. Guide the editor to make the article perfect. Haribhagirath (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this isn't a discussion of the article being perfect. it's about it meeting WP:CORP. many of the keep arguments fails to expand on the "just more sources needed" argument. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An aircraft manufacturer in existence for 25 years and producing over 1,000 aircraft failing WP:CORP? . Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that isn't a criterion. the main criterion is here. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is easily met by the year-on-year coverage in Jane's. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May need to be tagged for additional citations, however enough refs to prove notability. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:22, 29 April 2011 (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.