Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaska Seaplane Service (3rd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus below is that in the absence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources this article should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alaska Seaplane Service
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I told myself I had let this go, but I have to admit it, this article is my white whale. I find it ridiculous that it survived my two previous AFD noms. Allow me to explain why:
 * The only reference that is used to actually establish notability is a brief mention in a travel magazine wherein the author mentions that he flew with these guys. The article is about the trip they went on, not the air taxi they flew on.
 * Their fleet is tiny and only operates in one small corner of Alaska
 * At the previous AFDs several users made up new inclusion criteria out of thin air and then proudly proclaimed that this article met those criteria. Apparently verifying that this air taxi exists and has airplanes was enough for some users.
 * Alaska has at least 500 small local air carriers like this. We also have hundreds of local land and water taxis. Few if any of them are notable or even known outside of the local areas in which they operate
 * There have been no real substantive improvements to this article in all the time since the last AFD. Why? Because there still aren't any real sources to base any new content on.
 * There was some claim that providing "essential air services" for the government automatically endowed them with notability, but no one ever explained why that is or what guideline it was based on. There are such contracts in pretty much all coastal or isolated areas of Alaska, it's nothing special. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. It's not surprising there's so little material on an airline which has two planes. Claritas § 18:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - (copied from 2nd AfD) Air transportation is absolutely essential in Alaska and are practically its lifeline. The size of the airplanes has nothing to do with notability.  I suppose the "local" contention is referring to the service area which in fact it hundreds of thousands of square miles.   This German article writes about it too.--Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat surprised you simply copied over your comments from the last AFD, I believe I refuted the bulk of your reasoning in my nomination. This whole "essential service" thing is a red herring. We have taxis, boats, and busses that provide the same services, not only elsewhere in Alaska but in Juneau and the rest of the panhandle. Nobody has ever explained what makes this one more notable than all the others. In my town we have a taxi company that operates four vehicles. They have several government contracts for providing local transportation to the elderly and disabled, and that could be verified with publicly available documents. Does that make them notable? (answer=no) This argument smacks of "it's automatically notable because airplanes are cool." Airplanes are cool, but as you mention yourself, they are much, much more commonly used in Alaska than in the rest of the states, making one small carrier among hundreds less notable than small airlines elsewhere, not more. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite its small size, it is an Airline offering scheduled flights, which has been established over 50 years. If this was just a charter operation which had never operated scheduled flights then I would agree with deletion, but it isn't. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AVIATION notified. Mjroots (talk)
 * Sorry, can you show me the guideline which says that airlines which offer scheduled flights (no matter how small, and how little independent coverage they have in reliable sources) are automatically notable? I haven't seen that one.    Snotty Wong   yak 14:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oakshade and Mjroots, although I think Oakshade's argument is somewhat flawed - the importance of aviation in Alaskan life merits an article about that subject, not necessarily every little aviation company meeting the needs of Alaskan communities. Yes, there are lots of little aviation companies that don't deserve WP articles, but IMO this isn't one of them. The thing that differentiates this one from other little companies out there is that it is offering scheduled services as opposed to charter services. Are there really hundreds of scheduled airlines in Alaska? YSSYguy (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless I am missing a standard somewhere else, (like the specific one we have for aircraft) the applicable notability standard is Notability (organizations and companies) which states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This just doesn't have the references to make that standard. Please do correct me if I am looking at the wrong standard. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with Ahunt, it is simply not notable. Roger (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The following is the sum total of WP guidelines dealing specifically with airline notability: "Commercial airlines can be notable if they have been discussed in multiple, reliable sources". This airline has been mentioned in the Flight International World Airline Directory since 2004 and in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF, it seems Alaska Seaplane Service has more mention in "independent, third-party, reliable sources" than many other aviation companies with articles, some of which I have tried (and failed) to have deleted via either CSD or PROD. Regardless of how this discussion turns out, perhaps it is time to iron out what actually constitutes a notable airline. YSSYguy (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An entry in a directory is not an argument for notability, otherwise everyone who is listed in a phonebook would be notable. The subject must be "discussed", not merely mentioned. Airlines must also comply with WP:CORP. Roger (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do agree with YSSYguy that we really should develop a guideline for airline notability with detail similar to the one we have for aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the above question from YSSY: Yes, there are hundreds of small local air carriers in Alaska that offer scheduled service to small villages. I live in a town that is much, much smaller than Juneau and we have four scheduled carriers and about ten unscheduled ones. Outfits like this are the equivalent of a village taxi or the boat that delivers the mail. There is nothing special about having a schedule, it's just a way to get regular customers who come into hub towns to do grocery shopping and so forth and want a cheap reliable ride back to their village. If somebody could explain why having a schedule makes something notable I'd really appreciate it, because to me that is just nonsense. The bank I go to has a schedule that dictates that deposits made after 4pm on Friday will not be processed until Monday. Does that make them notable? The grocery store here has a schedule that says that Thursday is senior citizen discount day. Is that notable? More on point, the guy that will drive you from here to Anchorage leaves at 8:30 in the morning. His passenger capacity is about the same as two small airplanes. Is he also automatically notable?
 * By the way, we do have a very brief article that could really use some expansion on the History of aviation in Alaska, and you can click here to see my failed attempt to get a cogent guideline established for these types of air carriers. I want to stress that I have tried to fix this mess, but as it stands now I strongly believe this article does not meet the basic criteria for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: User:YSSYguy has started a general discussion on the topic of developing a notability standard for articles about air carriers at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic appears in numerous books about Alaska and so has adequate notability for our purposes. The nomination is openly disruptive per WP:DEL as it is clear that the only reason for making the nomination is the hope of getting a different result.  Please see WP:WIN and WP:LETITGO. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets have a few quotes from some of the "numerous books" please. Roger (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Previous AfD closed as no consensus, so relisting is appropriate. I'm not seeing the "numerous books" that Colonel Warden talks about.  Here is my analysis of the 5 sources in this article:
 * "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International - A mere listing of airlines proves existence, not notability.
 * Hinman, Mike (January 2, 2001). "Flight services face insurance nightmare". Juneau Empire. - Trivial mention in an article that is otherwise about insurance premiums for such companies.
 * "Alaska Seaplane Service - Certificate - Interstate Air Transportation". US Department of Transportation.  - Copies of the company's licenses and certificates once again only prove existence, not notability.
 * "ORDER SELECTING CARRIER". US Department of Transportation. 2008-12-29. - Copy of a contract between this company and the US government. No notability established here.
 * http://www.flyalaskaseaplanes.com/about.html - Primary source. Seems to indicate that this company owns and operates a whopping four planes.
 * So, it is clear to see that this article does not pass WP:GNG's requirement of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no need to establish alternate guidelines for the notability of airline companies when WP:GNG is doing just fine in this case.    Snotty Wong   communicate 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Colonel Warden, care to back off the accusations a bit? What exactly is "openly disruptive" about re-nominating an article for deletion eighteen months after the previous discussion? An article that has never had adequate sourcing despite the completely bogus claims made here and in the previous AFDs? Here's a policy page you left off your list: consensus can change. There has been more than ample opportunity for this articles defenders to come up with some real, substantive sources that discuss this particular air carrier in a non trivial fashion. Where are they? All that has been provided is evidence that it exists, and that one German travel writer once took a ride on one of their planes. How anyone can claim that establishes notability is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The fact that air service in Alaska is an indication that an article about air service in Alaska would be worthwhile having.  It does nto mean that every air carrier is therefore notable.  A paramedic provides life saving services.  It does not follow that every paramedic is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I closed the first AFD in 2008 as "keep" but this time I have to agree with the nom. The only coverage I can find is trivial mentions, directory entries and such. I might be convinced to keep this under WP:IAR if they were the only game in town but air services are a dime a dozen up there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no significant coverage of this tiny airline in this discussion, or that I can find. Courcelles (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2010 (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.