Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Air Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Island Air Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A small local carrier with no claim of notability. The sources used are both primary, being the subject's own website. Nothing any better found in a search. The source used to establish what planes they actually have appears to consist solely of photographs with no text other than "Island Air Service owns four planesto meet all your Kodiak travel needs." Given that there are literally hundreds of small airlines in Alaska there seems little reason to have an article for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As noted by the nom, the only difference between this and the other Alaskan bush-lines is the type of aircraft used, and that's not enough to make them worthy of an article (now, if they had a Trislander, I might cut them a bit more slack. ;) ) - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability as explained by Bushranger and nom. Maybe they should start flying Trislanders.... I was trying to find another article to merge into but we seem to be missing any Regional airlines of the United States-sort of articles, other than the sad list of regional airlines mess, that is. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Listing every airline of this size in Alaska would be pretty ridiculous anyway. As so much of Alaska is off the road system there are literally hundreds of local carriers with between two and five small planes like these. Larger carriers are already listed at List of airlines in Alaska, you can see from the talk archives there the various struggles to define what constitutes an airline -vs- an air taxi or flightseeing outfit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The airline is sufficiently notable to sustain an article because it operates scheduled services (i.e not ad hoc charter and sightseeing only). It also operates aircraft outside the General Aviation category, such as the BN Islander. Agree that secondary sources should be sought if possible. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There has never been a consensus that providing scheduled service magically grants notability, as you know because you participated in several of the discussions that led to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. I've never understood the contention that anything that runs on a schedule is more notable than a similar organization that does not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not getting into a long drawn-out argument, but if an airline is operating regular scheduled services using an airliner, it should generally be notable enough to sustain an article. An ad-hoc charter operator operating non-scheduled and sightseeing services using a bizjet or bizprop or GA aircraft only is unlikely to be notable enough to sustain an article (IMHO, of course). Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, making up a criterion like that is exactly why we already had several prolonged community discussions. And the conclusion reached at all of them was that scheduling does not confer notability and airlines are subject to WP:N and WP:CORP and do not have any special exemptions or specific thresholds, including scheduling. You have repeated this theory about scheduling conferring notability but have never explained why that is. It just doesn't make any sense to say that an organization with a schedule is automatically notable when an identical organization without a schedule would not be. We haven't even met WP:V here, let alone the GNG or CORP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that there are thousands of one and two-plane operators in Alaska, let alone the rest of the world. Undoubtedly these perform a useful function, but they are almost all non-notable. Some sort of threshold is needed. Operating scheduled services generally requires licences, government approval, oversight by national (and international) regulatory bodies etc etc. The operation of scheduled services should at least add weight to the argument for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have repeated this argument in every discussion on the subject over the last several years and it has failed to gain consensus support every time. We tried, you, me, and a stack of other users, to come up with the type of standard you speak of. In the end it was decided that CORP was sufficient. We cannot ignore the fact that there are no sources out there. As a matter of fact, it is not even verified by a reliable independent source that they operate on a schedule. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is an independant source which states that the company operates scheduled services. Alaska Travel Service. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent? possibly although they could be being paid for the listing. Reliable? obviously not, as it is a website for a travel agency. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is an independant source which states that the company operates scheduled services. Alaska Travel Service. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have repeated this argument in every discussion on the subject over the last several years and it has failed to gain consensus support every time. We tried, you, me, and a stack of other users, to come up with the type of standard you speak of. In the end it was decided that CORP was sufficient. We cannot ignore the fact that there are no sources out there. As a matter of fact, it is not even verified by a reliable independent source that they operate on a schedule. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that there are thousands of one and two-plane operators in Alaska, let alone the rest of the world. Undoubtedly these perform a useful function, but they are almost all non-notable. Some sort of threshold is needed. Operating scheduled services generally requires licences, government approval, oversight by national (and international) regulatory bodies etc etc. The operation of scheduled services should at least add weight to the argument for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, making up a criterion like that is exactly why we already had several prolonged community discussions. And the conclusion reached at all of them was that scheduling does not confer notability and airlines are subject to WP:N and WP:CORP and do not have any special exemptions or specific thresholds, including scheduling. You have repeated this theory about scheduling conferring notability but have never explained why that is. It just doesn't make any sense to say that an organization with a schedule is automatically notable when an identical organization without a schedule would not be. We haven't even met WP:V here, let alone the GNG or CORP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not getting into a long drawn-out argument, but if an airline is operating regular scheduled services using an airliner, it should generally be notable enough to sustain an article. An ad-hoc charter operator operating non-scheduled and sightseeing services using a bizjet or bizprop or GA aircraft only is unlikely to be notable enough to sustain an article (IMHO, of course). Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 10 February 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.