Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Aerosports (2nd 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 source analysis has been very compelling and addresses the relevant policy NCORP and the keep votes are either assertions, not based on policy, reflecting the wromg policy GNG or, in the case of the single vote providing sources, successfully challenged. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

G-Aerosports
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I removed the speedy tag because there is a claim that new information has come up from the original deletion over four years ago. It still looks to me like there could be a WP:COI and the subject may not meet WP:GNG or another notability guideline. I'm unconvinced that the sources are independent and enough to meet the notability standards. I believe the article should be deleted but let's have a discussion first. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation,  and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. The sources, listed as "External links/References", are a few photos, a couple of YT videos and an e-book written by (as it appears) the user who created the article (this is an indication of COI, too; please, note that yesterday the same user created the Greek WP article as well). ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate manufacturer, which, in the meanwhile, has introduced new models and has an agreement for production under license in Canada - definately incrasing its notability. Please do note that there are hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia - there are even articles for makers of a single test sporting aircraft or a single vehicle. I see no reson why such articles should be deleted.Skartsis (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skartsis "Legitimate manufacturer" has nothing to do with notability; it could have been illegal and notable. The "hundreds of such articles in Wikipedia" is an argument to avoid: the existence of other articles that their subject may lack notability doesn't justify keeping this article. To me the creation of this article by you looks like a product of WP:COI, it has to do with listing you e-book as a source. I might be wrong, but that was the first thing that crossed my mind when you created the Greek article (now deleted). ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Skartsis Also, if notability is met there's still the potential WP:COI issues that would be reason for removal of the article. I applaud your enthusiasm--do you have anything for us to consider about WP:COI?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chalk19 and Paul McDonald I removed reference to my book (this was added only to provide additional reference, makes no difference to me - you may have seen that now it is an open access eBook on Academia). Also, I personally asked the manufacturer (through the e-mail in its website) to provide written permission for the images, as demanded by an editor. Was this that lead to the claim of "suspected connection"? You may as well delete the article, if you still believe so. Of course, I will repeat that this approach could lead to the deletion of a big part of Wikipedia. Regarding similar makers, random examples are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzavia_GAK-22_Dino (a single ultralight aircraft made) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_EDA_100_Flamingo (incomplete development of an ultralight aircraft). I will not argue further, and respect any decision. Skartsis (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I just added six new RS, including one from a reliable Spanish aviation magazine, one from HuffPo.gr, and another from newsbomb.gr. Now the citations are 10. Ten citations are a lot of citations. What's more, the coverage is persistent and spans from 2011 up to 2022, indicating lasting notability. This company has created a stealth kit aeroplane which is quite popular and notable. One of its founders is a retired policeman with no aviation experience. I will try to expand the article whenever I get some time. This is a very interesting and notable company. I will close by noting that Mr. Skartsis has no COI. His book is freely available online. He doesn't stand to profit from this endeavour. In fact, Mr. Skartsis has resuscitated the knowledge base of the old industrial base of Greece by creating articles on en.wiki. His multitude of Greek automobile and industrial articles on en.wiki is a testament to his extensive knowledge, experience, and dedication. I know that, due to cultural bias, Greek manufacturers are not particularly known in North America. I am pleased that, at least, the article was not CSD'ed. That would be too much cultural bias. Dr.   K.  22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dr.K. At least many of the new references added are not from relable sources (ellines.com, ipop.gr, newsbomb.gr). The coverage on the subject looks like just a reproduction of the point of view of the company, based on YT viedos, company statements etc. For example, presenting this aircraft as the "Greek Stealth bomber fighter" (huffingtonpost.gr), is just ridiculous in my opinion. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think all 11 sources are reliable. In particular, non-trivial coverage in the Macedonia newspaper, Flyer magazine, Flying magazine, iefimerida.gr, etc., is indicative of the notability of the subject. HuffPo, newsbeast are also very reliable,. despite your objections. Same goes for the Spanish aviation magazine etc. Even if we subtract the sources you think are unreliable, there are more than enough remaining sources to establish the notability of this article, a fact you seem to de facto recognise, since you didn't say all the sources are unreliable. In any case, I get your POV, I think it is faulty, and I do not wish to continue arguing with you, especially since you seem eager to cause this notable article to be deleted using faulty arguments. You put this article for speedy deletion without doing any due diligence. If you had done so you would have discovered the reliable sources that myself and Mr. Skartsis found and you would not have put this article up for speedy deletion. Thankfully, you were overruled by an admin, Paul McDonald, and there is now a good chance that the article will be saved. Since you have a userbox at your userpage that you participate in AfD discussions, I advise you in future to be more careful when you tag articles for CSD. Also thankfully, we live in a wiki. Other knowledgeable users will undoubtedly chime in, so we don't need to continue this back and forth between us. Finally, you do not need to ping me. First, I find pinging annoying. Second, I have the page watchlisted and, if I wish, I respond.  Dr.   K.  09:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't understand why a simple article about an existing, legitimate company with so many references to it, has caused so heated arguments regarding its deletion. It is my turn to wonder why. At some point it even looked like not being familiar with all aspects of Wikepedia, which has tons of articles about individual vehicles or aircraft (even if a single copy was built) - fully corresponding to its spirit and mission. The entire, or most of the Category "Ultralight Aircraft", as well as many other entire Categories, should be deleted according to some of the arguments I read.Skartsis (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dr.K. Flyer magazine follows the same pattern as the sources I mentioned: just a reproduction of the company claims based on (a promotional ?) video ( "The single-seater, again based on the video, lifts off slowly and needs little room to get back on the ground, all the better for making believe you’re ending the mission by catching the wire. For more info, check out the company’s site, www.aerosports.gr" ). Furthermore, the subject of the added sources is a specific model, not the company as a whole. Don't see any really independent coverage on the subject. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are selectively cherry picking sources while ignoring the rest of the WP:RS that exist in the article. Read my previous response. The RS currently in the article do not cover the Archon Stealth kit only. They cover the designer and his history as well. You can benefit by reading them. Also, as I mentioned before, do not ping me. It is annoying. Dr.   K.  16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment my issue is that I'm not convinced that WP:COI and WP:GNG thresholds are met. I'm not convinced because the sources are in a non-English language on an English encyclopedia.  I'm more than willing to be wrong here--maybe it DOES meet those thresholds and I'm just not able to confirm.  But to me, if the supporting sources aren't in the language of the encyclopedia, that points to trying another wiki that has alignment with the language.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I added one more English language source, and a link to the website of G-Aerosports U.S. Dealer (referring to the Canadian manufacturer that will produce one of its products under license for the North American market). Not notable??...In my eyes, so many sources and such documentation for such a subject, look almost ridiculous... I had said that I would not argue further, but I am puzzled by some of the arguments. It isn't about anybody's promotion (such articles are visited by 1-2 viewers a day, at best). It is about formal inclusion of a decent manufacturer in English WP's database, in exactly the same way so many (similar) others are included - and keep being added. If we favor (for whichever reason) deletion of an article, arguments can always be found.Skartsis (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:TRYANOTHER nowhere mentions that a source must be in the English laguage to be acceptable and, in the absence of an English source, an article must move to the language of these sources. This is a stark misinterpretation of TRYANOTHER. WP:RS does not exclude reliable sources in other languages either. In fact, foreign language sources are widely used in Wikipedia articles all the time, and, sometimes, exclusively. If you don't believe me, ask WP:RSN about that. As far as COI, Mr. Skartsis has removed his book from the article. I don't see any vestiges of COI on his part.  Dr.   K.  15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My comments about trying another wiki are about finding the best home for the information. No, it doesn't talk about languages and such.  It's not a policy or guideline, simply an essay of ideas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the age of Google translate, I don't think foreign sources are such a challenge any longer. Thank you for the clarification. Dr.   K.  16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company as follows:
 * This from makthes.gr relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
 * Leaving aside any discussion on whether this from ellines.com is a reliable source, it also relies entirely on an interview with the founder and fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
 * This from ipop.gr is remarkably similar to the makthes.gr reference above and also relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
 * This from transponder1200.com describes one of the planes and does not provide in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This HuffPost reference repeats parts of an interview from another article and has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from newsbomb.gr repeats information from another article on one of the aircraft from a blog (blogs fail WP:RS) and provides no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from flyinmag.com comments on a video of one of the aircraft, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from flyer.co.uk repeats information about the same aircraft as the other refs above, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from all-aero.com fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from SIA Magazine also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This from iefimerida.gr also fails for the same reasons, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * Finally, this from makthes.gr relies on an interview, has no information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * There is possibly a case for an article about the Archon aircraft itself but the topic company fails NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 15:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment As I have said, the whole issue is about the "right" of a given company to be included in Wikipedia's database (which, through endless categories, tries to include even very small manufacturers). I have added yet one more reference. I suggest we all wait until the JULY 2022 OSHKOSH AIR SHOW, where a company model (Archon SF/1) will be presented, and see whether there is adequate publicity and reference.Skartsis (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The company is clearly notable, having produced some remarkable aircraft on very limited resources. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources also. Khirurg (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2022 (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.