Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathfinder Aviation

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. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder Aviation

[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)

Non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP. WP:ORGDEPTH is non existent. A before search does show me this which doesn’t do anything to prove notability. Other hits were predominantly in user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was nominated for deletion less than ten minutes after it was created. Nominator made two edits to the article in between "converting bare URLs". This leaves me with serious doubt that any reasonable WP: BEFORE effort was made. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @RadioKAOS, a before was done alright and it turned up nothing cogent as per RS, if you have proof to the contrary, feel free to provide it. Go on, we have all the time in the world. Celestina007 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — let the record reflect that a before was carried out which showed hits predominantly in user generated sources which are very much unreliable, if anyone can show me reliable sources that discusses the organization or show how they meet WP:NCORP, let whomever produce the sources to this AFD. I have categorically asked @RadioKAOS who implied that a before wasn’t performed to bring forth any sources that show the organization satisfies NCORP but they haven’t, they wouldn’t be able to do so as such reliable sources are non existent. Celestina007 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the one source that could possibly considered directly written to the company. Otherwise, there are still a relatively substantial number of sources from notable third-party news sources such as Bloomberg, nonprofit organizations, and other third-party reporting and aggregate websites. There are a number of sources that are listed highly in Google search results, many listed directly below the airline's own website and social media channels. I have added a number of new third-party sources, including from sources like Propublica and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, to help confirm the notability of the company.

Comment — I have to say as you are the creator of the article you just made it worse. Just so we are clear when you say Bloomberg, you mean this right? Now that is a profile page and does next to nothing in substantiating notability. Furthermore please you are welcome to prove me wrong by bringing to this AFD the non existent “reliable sources” you claim exists. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't really get why a profile page doesn't mark reputability. Putting aside the nature of the page itself, Bloomberg is a reputable enough source that if they're willing to put up information about a company I believe it's a mark in the company's favor. Why would Bloomberg go to the effort of paying someone to compile and/or edit this if it isn't reputable Regardless, here is a list of reputable sources on the page that include things besides company profiles: ch-aviation probublica Better Business Bureau Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Alaska Alliance PRNewswire If none of these are reputable sources, then I don't know what counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slowtationjet (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowtationjet, not quite, a Bloomberg profile isn’t sufficient as WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, so like i said it does nothing to prove notability. I have said it severally could you please show us the reliable sources you say exists that proves the organization is notable? If you aren’t going to do that, then your comments aren’t helpful but are in fact disruptive. See WP:RS for clarity. At 29 days old and the article creator you may want to understand policy on notability first before participating in AFD's which require the input of knowledgeable editors who are conversant with our policy on notability for organizations. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- none of the sources cited are both independent and substantial. The ProPublica source appears to be a listing of a government contract, not substantial journalistic coverage. And my understanding is that any business can have a listing on the Better Business bureau; being listed there does not indicate notability. The other sources are either company listings or were written by the company's owner, and my google search didn't turn up anything that would indicate notability. Night S H I F T (49) (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, non notable ORG, there does not exist both independent and substantial WP:RS CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial sources to help the article meet GNG or any subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:38, 11 May 2021 (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.