Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcarga

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. The source analysis seems compelling and correctly applies the right policy. The delete argument is therefore the most compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcarga[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)

1. Lacks independent sources. A Google search found no coverage of the airline, just self published sources or press releases. One of the website which I thought was independent is aircargonews.com, however after reading it fully, I was thinking that this was just a press release and not a news release. I tried everything I could to improve the article.

2. The "History" section is unsourced. Even a Google search couldn't find any mention of that. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Venezuela. Kaseng55 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of these new sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz: If I understand correctly, would you like more details regarding the references content? --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NoonIcarus, that would be helpful. But the point I was trying to make when I wrote the relisting comment is that we needed more participants here to express their point of view on the sources you found. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Ohh, alright. Many thanks! Please let me know if more information is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second and last of NoonIcarus' sources are passing, but the others do seem to be SIRS. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

ElNacional (first article) is 3 sentences, one of which is devoted to a quote from the president of the group. Insufficient content to meet CORPDEPTH
Elnacional (second article) discusses issues relating to customs declarations between USA and Venezuelan and relies *entirely* on information provided by the president of the topic company. It also lacks in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 1) discusses a complaint against the company by their workers but it does not provide sufficient information *about the company*, fails CORPDEPTH
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 2) also discusses a complaint, fails CORPDEPTH for the same reasons.
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 3) also discusses a complaint, also fails CORPDEPTH
LaVerdad de Vargas (article 4) also discusses a complaint, same failure to meet CORPDEPTH
La Libertad article is a report that an investigation was opened into an incident involving one of the topic company's planes. It doesn't discuss the company in detail, fails CORPDEPTH
Caracol article discusses the impact to the operations of the airport in Bogotá due to an incident involving one of the topic company's aircraft. Fails CORPDEPTH as above.

None of those sources come close to meeting the criteria for establishing notability. It isn't about finding mention of the company in a Google search, we need substantial independent weighty opinion/analysis/etc written by someone unaffiliated to the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A complaint" seems like an oversimplification for La Verdad de Vargas' articles. They talk about several labour disputes, including one instance where the workers went on without a bonus paycheck for at least five months. The articles also include a protest of at least 150 workers for similar reasons, lack of severance payment, and other delayed payments, information that can be added to the article. From what I understand, coverage about the workers is coverage about the company as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who talks about labour disputes? Only the workers. Interviews and quotes from the workers, nothing else. The workers are not "unaffiliated to the subject" which is required by ORGIND anyway. Even leaving that aside, my summary is accurate because the focus of all 4 LVdV articles are labour dispute complaints but no in-depth information in any of those articles about the company. There's nothing wrong with using these sources to support facts in an article but we require must more from sources that are to be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:39, 25 August 2023 (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.