- 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 based on the vast improvements in the article, the inherent notability of an airline company, the adoption by the Aviation wikiproject, and the much improved sourcing in the article. Great example of the WP:HEY standard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Salt Spring Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable company. Brianga (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article consists mostly of original research. The sole source cited contains only a passing mention of the company. There is currently no independent, signficant coverage to demonstrate notability. Nick Graves (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Small airline is not notable, its company website is a blog on worldpress. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable and almost not sources Think outside the box 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very insulting that they didn't even try to Wikify it. House of Scandal (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Failure to wikify is not a criterion for deletion, but a reason for improvement. I don't think insult was intended by this failure to wikify--it's a likely result of just being new and not being familiar with how the markup works. Do you care to cite another rationale for deletion--one that's based on a policy or guideline? Like, say, lack of notability? Nick Graves (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In response to the above points, firstly sorry I am new to wiki be assured no insult was meant, and thank you to whom ever it was that helped by wikifying my page. I have added some more references and will continue to do so, the company is set to be in the news again this week. Salt Spring Air is pretty notable, maybe it is just that I have not added enough data, I will work on that. Any tips are welcome and will be acted on. the company has a full web site at www.saltspringair.com i used the blog site as it is growing in content quicker and has some cool photos on it. So can I stay, for now? --Flymebc (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I recommend taking a look at the following policies or guidelines: Reliable sources, Conflict of interest, Original research and Notability (organizations and companies). There are currently two "References" sections in the article. The first consists of links to Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable sources for an article. The second References section lists an IMDb page, which is also not a reliable source. The other two articles are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage of the subject. They're not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. "Notability" in general is very relative, and your company might very well be notable within a certain locality and in certain people's minds, but "notability" within the Wikipedia context has a very specific definition, and the company does not yet meet that definition. I presume you are the proprieter of this company, or at least work for it, so you should review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It's usually not a good idea to edit or start an article about a company you own or work for, since this can lead to articles becoming advertisements, violations of neutrality policy, or a temptation to view the subject as more notable than it actually is (by Wikipedia standards), thus creating an article that doesn't really belong here. Finally, the article contains information that is not confirmed by the two reliable sources cited. Perhaps you know this information personally, but without a reputably published source to back it up, it shouldn't be included in the article. That's original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. More data and pictures won't save this article--proof that it is notable (significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) is the only thing that can do that. As for the wikification issue, you can learn by clicking "edit" on certain articles just to take a look at what the markup looks like (do not use real articles, however, to test things out). You can then go to the sandbox and do some experiments to get familiar with how editing using this markup works. Nick Graves (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I hope you don't bite with too many assumptions by saying "your company". --Deryck C. 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: thank you for the feedback, I have read through your response, and I am currently playing around in the sand box to pick up some wiki skills. I am not the proprietor or an employee of the company, my interest started because I can see the float planes landing form my window, I have (it’s a small island) got to know the owner and the company. Hence the pet project. I can see that being an acquantance of the owner may be on the fringe of the wiki conflict rule, but on an island this size the most knowledgeable about any island subject is probably somebody form the community. I understand more pictures and data won’t be the saving grace, but new/more articles may be. Salt Spring Air is being honoured with a life savers award this Friday and that is to be picked up by TV and Print media, Salt spring Air’s planes are pretty famous they have each been involved in block buster movies starring Nicholas Cage and Al Pacino (not both in the same movie) I am digging out the reference to those now. In the interest of trying to improve the article enough, could anybody point out the difference between it and say other companies in the same field i.e. Harbour Air--Flymebc (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Certainly, members of the community will have a lot of knowledge about such a company, but again, all information in a Wikipedia article must be supported with reliable, published sources to avoid crossing into Original research. Even if you personally know something to be true, you must be able to point to an article in a reliable newspaper, magazine, book, website, etc. to put such information in an article. You would get a long way toward proving notability for the company if you could find at least one reliable, secondary source that has an article specifically dedicated to covering it. While you search for that, you might consider "userfying" the article you created in case it gets deleted. Check out this article to see how that can be done. That way, you can restore the article once you've proven notability (though I would consult with the closing admin before doing that). As for Harbour Air, I'm of the opinion that notability has not been proven for that company either. It cites 3 sources, 1 of which doesn't have anything to do with the company, and two of which are actually the company's own website. You'll find that a lot of articles "slip through the cracks" and aren't up to policy or guidelines. That still doesn't excuse other articles when an editor brings up a legitimate criticism and asks for either proof of notability or article deletion. I would note, however, that Harbour Air is (according to its own website) the "World's Largest All-Seaplane Airline," which, if supported by independent coverage, would be a fact supporting its notability. Nick Graves (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I recommend taking a look at the following policies or guidelines: Reliable sources, Conflict of interest, Original research and Notability (organizations and companies). There are currently two "References" sections in the article. The first consists of links to Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable sources for an article. The second References section lists an IMDb page, which is also not a reliable source. The other two articles are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage of the subject. They're not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. "Notability" in general is very relative, and your company might very well be notable within a certain locality and in certain people's minds, but "notability" within the Wikipedia context has a very specific definition, and the company does not yet meet that definition. I presume you are the proprieter of this company, or at least work for it, so you should review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It's usually not a good idea to edit or start an article about a company you own or work for, since this can lead to articles becoming advertisements, violations of neutrality policy, or a temptation to view the subject as more notable than it actually is (by Wikipedia standards), thus creating an article that doesn't really belong here. Finally, the article contains information that is not confirmed by the two reliable sources cited. Perhaps you know this information personally, but without a reputably published source to back it up, it shouldn't be included in the article. That's original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. More data and pictures won't save this article--proof that it is notable (significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) is the only thing that can do that. As for the wikification issue, you can learn by clicking "edit" on certain articles just to take a look at what the markup looks like (do not use real articles, however, to test things out). You can then go to the sandbox and do some experiments to get familiar with how editing using this markup works. Nick Graves (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i have added more data and links in the reference section, including an article that appeared yesterday. i have more coming from the vancouver press hopefully this weekend--Flymebc (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, tends towards provisional keep - This case is a marginal one. Notability should be credited given that the company is an airline. Everyone can start a random company but unless they get rich enough there couldn't be an airline. (The airline code system tells us that the number of airlines in the world shouldn't exceed far beyond 1000.) And consider fleet sizes - Oasis Hong Kong Airlines had only 2 planes at launch and was yet notably big news. (at least its article stayed.) This airline has 4. Considering that the article is also in its infancy (less than 10 days) and the principal contributor is a newbie, failure to wikify is not at all a reason for deletion. I think we should give some time for this article to develop, maybe a month, before we rethink deletion. I suggest that this case should be concluded as "kept no consensus". --Deryck C. 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further information - Two out of the three other airlines that operate parallel to Salt Spring Air - West Coast Air and Harbour Air, both operating primarily seaplanes, have their articles. I suppose a bit of parallel ruling should apply here? --Deryck C. 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The primary concern here has not been lack of wikification (which has since been corrected), but whether this company is notable or not. Notability is established by signficant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited give anything close to significant coverage of the subject. It does not matter that other, similar companies also have articles on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)--notability must be decided on the merits of the coverage in the sources cited for the article. Also, whether or not one calls this company an "airline" has no bearing on its level of notability--again, that depends entirely on what sort of coverage is found in reliable sources. I agree that it is important not to bite newcomers, which is why I've strongly suggested userfying the article to preserve this editor's work, have given suggestions for improvement and sourcing, have helped wikify, and have reproduced the article at Wikinfo. However, the need to be welcoming does not mean that notability guidelines ought to be disregarded. There is ample opportunity for restoration of this article if its creator is able to prove notability at a later date. At present, however, this is a clear-cut case of an article's subject failing WP:CORP. Finally, I would like to point out that the fact that this company has a fleet of only 4 planes is pretty strong support for a presumption of non-notability. Nick Graves (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Please point out how the website of the transport department of Canada (footnote 3) and an independent tourism review website about Salt Spring Island (footnote 2) fail to serve as independent reliable sources. In addition, I appreciate your skepticism that a fleet of only four planes supports a presumption of non-notability (and therefore I appreciate the presence of this debate); however, that cannot disprove notability. (again refer to Oasis Hong Kong as a counterexample) --Deryck C. 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Sure, that source is independent and reliable. But it is not significant coverage--it does not go into any depth about the company. So far, all the sources cited just have bits and pieces about the company. Signficant coverage is needed to prove notability. As I've said to Fly before, a trade magazine that dedicates a whole article to this company would go a long way toward demonstrating notability--that would be signficant coverage. The burden of proof is on those who seek to demonstrate notability, not on those who challenge the claim of notability. Nick Graves (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Please point out how the website of the transport department of Canada (footnote 3) and an independent tourism review website about Salt Spring Island (footnote 2) fail to serve as independent reliable sources. In addition, I appreciate your skepticism that a fleet of only four planes supports a presumption of non-notability (and therefore I appreciate the presence of this debate); however, that cannot disprove notability. (again refer to Oasis Hong Kong as a counterexample) --Deryck C. 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The primary concern here has not been lack of wikification (which has since been corrected), but whether this company is notable or not. Notability is established by signficant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited give anything close to significant coverage of the subject. It does not matter that other, similar companies also have articles on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)--notability must be decided on the merits of the coverage in the sources cited for the article. Also, whether or not one calls this company an "airline" has no bearing on its level of notability--again, that depends entirely on what sort of coverage is found in reliable sources. I agree that it is important not to bite newcomers, which is why I've strongly suggested userfying the article to preserve this editor's work, have given suggestions for improvement and sourcing, have helped wikify, and have reproduced the article at Wikinfo. However, the need to be welcoming does not mean that notability guidelines ought to be disregarded. There is ample opportunity for restoration of this article if its creator is able to prove notability at a later date. At present, however, this is a clear-cut case of an article's subject failing WP:CORP. Finally, I would like to point out that the fact that this company has a fleet of only 4 planes is pretty strong support for a presumption of non-notability. Nick Graves (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further information - Two out of the three other airlines that operate parallel to Salt Spring Air - West Coast Air and Harbour Air, both operating primarily seaplanes, have their articles. I suppose a bit of parallel ruling should apply here? --Deryck C. 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Look at the article now. It has been adopted by WP:AVIATION as an Airlines article and much improved in the past week. Let the infant grow. -Canglesea (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (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.