Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burl's Aircraft


 * 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   no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Burl's Aircraft

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unnotable company as far as I can see. One reference is a dead link, and the other two aren't much better. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 11:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete article fails to establish subject's notability. Note, I found a reposting of one of the dead links on the Pprune web forum here:, and the other dead link (in the external links section) I found the updated URL for. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note: This deletion discussion has been mentioned at WikiProject Aircraft and WikiProject Aviation, within whose scope they fall. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I did go to my central public library and checked Jane's All The World's Aircraft from 2007 to 2011 and found no entries, so it would seem Burl's has not been noted as an aircraft manufacturer, even though they hold the TC for the Sedan. The Alaska Journal of Commerce article plus this EAA article seem to be enough third party refs to barely meet WP:CORP as an aircraft parts supplier, though. Those articles also have enough material to do some substantial expansion of the article, which is needed if it is kept. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have done some expansion, clean-up and formatting of the article. I believe it meets WP:CORP now. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only solid independent source is about the man, not the company. The rest are either dead links, trivial government documentation, or from the company's own site. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since this seems to be a one-person business, the Alaska Journal of Commerce article doesn't really differentiate between the person and company, referring to both pretty much interchangeably. I still think it establishes notability for the company. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a person is only notable for his company, the page should be on the company, not the man, a la WP:BLP1E, I'd assume? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, a single article in an obscure publication (circulation: 7000) hardly demonstrates notability for either the man or his one-person business. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Delete This article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN and the sources are unreliable as the two links provided are dead See: WP:IRS and WP:LINKROT -- Cameron11598  (Talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: In checking just now I only found one dead link. Which two are dead links? - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you need to read the policies and guidelines you link to. Being a dead link does not = unreliable source; from WP:LINKROT: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer.WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." (emphasis in original) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I should have probably read close before linking to a guideline, thanks for that information. However I still do not think that the article has established notability. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Two links appear dead to me. The second is reproduced, probably in violation of copyright, in a forum post that claims to be a copy of an article in the Anchorage Daily News. Please don't interpret this comment as either supporting or opposing deletion: I'm just trying to get the facts right. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first link you note is not a dead link - it is a "nil return" on an FAA inquiry that shows that no aircraft of that make and model are registered, it shows what it is supposed to show to support the text. It isn't a dead link. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake I thought the "Nil Return" was a dead link -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (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.