Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acme Aircraft Corporation


 * 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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided by Carrite and others. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Acme Aircraft Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem notable. Two refs in the article, and possibly an entry in Janes All The World's Aircraft, but these are little more than directory entries and the company is not the primary, or even significant focus of any of the three publications. The article is a one line stub and contains nothing more than is in the article about the only aircraft that it apparently produced. As such it fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge in Acme Sportsman. Since the company did produce an aeroplane, it needs some space. But there is no justification for separate articles. The company is the more general topic, so the content on the specific aeroplane should be merged in here and the aircraft article made a redirect. The cleanest way to preserve significant edit history is probably to delete this article and then move the plane article across. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Acme Sportsman per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of the aircraft is not inherited by the manufacturer. The hatnote should be added to the aircraft article afterwards (modified to be a redirect type ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1929 has an entry on the company and I have incorporated this information, plus expanded the article somewhat from the original stub using this and the other refs. While still short, I believe that it now makes notability requirements, as it has multiple independent references and contains information that would not normally be merged to an aircraft type article, such as company staffing. I would ask that editors who have already made their thoughts known above re-visit the article in light of its current state. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources. The sources used in the article are still little more than directory entries, despite the expansion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jane's is the definitive work on aviation companies and aircraft types and has been so for over 100 years. It has established notability in dozens of other AfD debates. There basically is no more reliable source than Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, so just because a company is listed in Janes doesn't mean that the company is. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps you are misunderstanding. There is no need to discuss the inheritance of notability. The company has an entry in Janes all its own, which shows the company is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've explained below, an entry in a directory containing thousands of entries does not establish notability. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A company that built a total of 3 aircraft comprising 2 models in the 1920's? This isn't the early era, this is post-WWI. Definitely lacking. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability on Wikipedia is not determined by how many aircraft a company built, but whether there are multiple independent refs that are available. In this case there are and it makes the criteria to be kept. We don't only write about Boeing here, but about the small companies and the the less successful ones, too. It all forms a more complete history of aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:N Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, minor news stories, are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - a company that actually produced aircraft with independent source like Janes is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the requirement for notability. The requirement is that "significant coverage" is required, and that is not the case. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jane's All The World's Aircraft is not discriminating, so while Janes is reliable, it is of the database sort of reference. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually that is not accurate. As we have discovered at WikiProject Aircraft, while attempting to flesh out articles on both aircraft types and manufacturers, in a surprising number of cases there is no coverage in Janes, so despite the series title it is not "all the world's aircraft", just the more notable ones. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of coverage of one company doesn't make another company notable. That's not how notability works. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but a company profile in a reliable source does. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not correct. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". A single entry in a book containing thousands of entries is not "significant coverage". Jane's is a directory, along with the other mentions, and inclusion does not establish notability. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes GNG. Here's indication (snippet) of coverage in the 1930 Aircraft Year Book. Also, it would seem, chapter-level coverage in the 1973 book The Theory of Management Systems. Even if this article never gets any bigger, the standing information has value. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those are great finds. I have added the Aircraft Year Book for 1930 ref to the article along with some new text from the work. I think this is pretty conclusive about the notability of the company as we now have profiles in five publications. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1930 Aircraft Year Book is a directory and inclusion does not establish notability. Similarly, the entry in The Theory of Management Systems seems to be one of many cases in the publication. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The publication does not address Acme Aircraft Corporation, but merely a single case from the company. This does not establish notability either. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like no one is agreeing with you. Since the article was expanded there have only been "keep" entries here and not a single participant has supported your move to delete the article. Hopefully this AfD will be closed soon, as it has now run a week. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.