Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airspeed 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.  MBisanz  talk 12:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Airspeed Aviation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Airspeed Aviation" is a small small plane charter company, does not meet WP:CORP. In attempts to clean it up, it was converted into a non-compliant DAB page for the multiple non-notable companies that have been known as "Airspeed Aviation". SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is just a list page, and none of what it may refer to actually has an article, so the page is functionally useless. Dictator Black (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is more of a disambiguation page yet the topics listed don't have pages so there is no need for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete See Miscellany for deletion/Airspeed Aviation for my original reasoning. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least one of the companies listed does appear to be notable. I have rewritten the page as a stub article about that company. The question now is, is this company notable enough to pass WP:GNG? I believe that it is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have now written a new topic over an old topic. If kept, the page now requires a History split.  Writing new topics on top of old non notable topics is always the wrong way to do things. It messes with the purpose of attribution histories.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely a split only arises if two versions are to be kept? Keeping even one, of any description, is the issue currently under debate. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The new focus is actually less covered than a local Canadian charter airline, which would not pass muster either, unfortunately. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The significant issue here is whether the present coverage can be adequately expanded, not how comprehensive it currently is. For an idea of the article's potential, see for example this Google search result.&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work with the new search results, but it does not bring the article to stand-alone notability. However, I'm changing my !Vote, as below. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge &rarr; Derby Airfield I'm thinking that the company is so intimately connected with the airfield, that they be covered under a single article; this would also allow introduction of information about the Derby Aero Club as part of the same article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose that. One of the multiple is associated with Derby Airfield, but not the rest, not the original topic of the page history.  No primary redirect.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Two other merge approaches occur to me. First, which direction should the merge go? Which is the more notable, the airfield or the owner-operator? Then, if merged into Derby Airfield might one solution to the multiples problem be to redirect this page to Airspeed (disambiguation), which would in turn link to a suitable section in Derby Airfield and (potentially) to any other articles created for other companies? Hope this makes sense. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - now that the article has been changed from a disambiguation page of sorts to an article on a company it probably makes sense to close this AfD, keep and and see if it can be expanded. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Response That's not how Wikipedia works. We don't keep articles on Topics that are not notable. Perhaps you can point to a number of sources that demonstrate notability?  HighKing++ 12:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources in the new current version:
 * (1) Mere mention
 * (2) Mere mention
 * (3) Directory information
 * (4) Promotional, non-independent source for and about the company.
 * Also note, the page was originally about a Canadian company. Now it’s about an English company. Both fail WP:CORP.  Attempts to save the page ignore the mess of its history, which is largely about converting a non-notable company into a WP:DAB-failing DAB page, presumably in response to the many ghit cross-matches, now being attempted to be turned into a different company page that is better, but still not notable.
 * This page should be deleted. Create the new Avaiation Airspeed (Derby Airfield) fresh, if you inclined.  Do not write over old pages with ghit cross-hits. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it amounts to the same result I would not be opposed to that approach. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the historical mess (which I admit is of my own thoughtless making) is on non-notable content, why bother to carve it out just so it can be deleted? Easier to leave it there to fester quietly to itself for evermore, it's not going to hurt anybody. But I have no objection if folks think it a useful exercise. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability as SmokeyJoe pointed out above and while this article in Flyer has been quoted as being the best source, it is based on an announcement and contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:39, 28 December 2019 (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.