Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Charter

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. Sandstein 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Charter

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

I don't see evidence that this is a notable business, meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviostart
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Jet Aircompany

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airline companies are generally notable. There is coverage online and in English that arguably satisfies GNG, but we need to know the name of the airline in Ukrainian. This being Ukrainian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Ukrainian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Ukraine, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Airline companies are generally notable." Even if it's true, that's an observation, not a rule.

If a topic is notable, then it's notable regardless of the notability of topics in the same category. If a topic isn't notable, then, likewise, its lack of notability isn't affected by the notability or non-notability of topics in the same category. Therefore, the argument "This topic is in category X, and topics in category X are generally notable" isn't a valid argument in evaluating the notability of a topic.

There isn't anything special about this article or this topic such that deleting it on the grounds of failing WP:N would be any more a violation of WP:ATD or WP:PRESERVE than the deletion of every other article that is removed on the grounds of a lack of notability. WP:ATD doesn't even apply here. Its thesis is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." A lack of notability cannot be resolved by improving a page, as it's a characteristic of the topic, not the content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a plausible (ie non-harmful) redirect violates ATD and R. Deleting mergeable content violates ATD and PRESERVE. Without exception, whether the topic is notable or not. We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article. There is such a fanbase and publishing industry for all things aeroplane related that it is unlikely that an airline company would not receive significant coverage. I can think of an explanation of why there may be offline coverage (GBooks is, as far as I am aware, not digitising the contents of Ukrainian libraries and seems to have a pronounced bias towards America and Britain because that is where it gets books from) and in the absence of a search for paper sources in a well stocked national or university library in Ukraine, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a redirect here so your comment about WP:R is irrelevant.

How seriously do you expect us to take the proposition that the deletion of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that has occurred over all these years under the clearly laid out provisions for doing so is in violation of Wikipedia's rules? Fact: We routinely delete articles for failing WP:N.

"We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article." No, we do not accept the proposition that because one person has declared something, from his own impressions, likely to meet GNG that we declare it to meet GNG whether or not it actually does.

When someone questions the notability of a topic, telling us without evidence that you just assume the topic meets GNG isn't a helpful response. A useful response is one that shares findings that demonstrate that that topic meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

Frankly, I don't understand the idea that any time someone with an aviation background decides to buy a couple of planes to hire out, the business is automatically notable. Is every cab driver who goes into business for himself notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here, which deals with the essence of your arguments. It would have been better to either bundle the three nominations or run them one at a time, instead of forcing me to repeat myself twice. James500 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article is a potential redirect to a list article is absurd, it's "not even wrong"; if accepted it would apply to every article on Wikipedia and we could never AfD anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Ukrainian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that this airline definitely does scheduled flights (see this), and I am told by User:Arxiloxos at the Baltic Jet Aircompany AfD that our general practice is to keep airlines that do scheduled flights. James500 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references used in the article are all database entries any airline would have, and additional searches failed to turn up coverage outside of similar database entries. Elaenia (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a number of GHits under "Аеро Чартер" or "Аеро-Чартер", though they appear mundane and mostly of questionable reliability. The Ukranian Wikipedia voted to delete its article. WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability points at WP:Notability (Transportation)#Airlines, and that just lists discussion in multiple, reliable sources. Even if common practice happens to be to retain airlines with scheduled flights, I'm not convinced that it's warranted here with cargo rather than passenger flights, and the contents of the article appears at risk of being and becoming inaccurate given the lack of RS and that it appears to be a snapshot of a particular time. Did the airline always operate with the listed destinations and aircraft? Does the airline still exist, and if not when did it cease operations? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a cargo transportation company that uses airplanes, not inherently notable as such; and otherwise does not appear to meet WP:GNG. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (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.