Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter-Avia


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter-Avia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Almost no information provided for an article to be considered as such. Jetstreamer Talk 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added. Google is not the be-all and end-all. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking for Google hits. I was looking for sources.  There aren't any that satisfy WP:GNG.  Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as I said, Google is not the be-all and end-all. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources don't need to be online but they do have to exist and they need to be about the subject. What sources do you rely on?  I don't think they exist anywhere.  Msnicki (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – no sources, not very long, and not notable. &mdash;Comp dude 123 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)  Changed my mind.  We could keep this article but it needs improvements and expansion.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources provided, WP:TOOLITTLE, WP:JNN. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the lack of even one source that's both reliable and actually about the subject and the lack of any reason for possible notability is not an WP:ATA. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Flight International is a reliable source, and the claim that an airline has "[no] reason for possible notability" is preposterous. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Googling suggests they did exist just a crap article but no reason to delete. Even two An-24s make an airline. Added a few refs including one from Flight International that proved they existed in 2002. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - existiance of airline has been verified though reliable sources. Neither the size or the article or its state is a cause for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources??? All I see are mentions of the name, basically nothing else, on a few lists of questionable reliability.  Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Flight International is not a "list of questionable reliability", it is an impeccable source. For a scheduled airline, that is sufficient. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All that shows is that it used to exist. Mere existence is not sufficient to establish notability.  If it were, everything would be notable.  Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For an airline that operated scheduled service, WP:CONSENSUS is that if it can be verified as existing through reliable sources it is notable enough for an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know where you find support for that claim anywhere in the guidelines. I'm relying on WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage:  ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..."  And from WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."  Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm relying on WP:CONSENSUS, as explained by Oakshade below. Slavish adherence to the rules in defiance of WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't serve Wikipedia's readers. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:AFDFORMAT, "The debate is not a vote". From WP:DPAFD, "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."  The important consensus we should be thinking about in this discussion is the consensus we already have in the form of our policies and guidelines.  WP:IAR is intended to encourage fast action be taken when necessary.  It contemplates emergency responses and simply doing your best to help build useful content:  " Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."  It does not contemplate being offered up as an excuse for why an article shouldn't have to satisfy WP:GNG.  WP:IAR is not a reason for saying we should have an article on Wikipedia that violates our basic policy of WP:Verifiability:  "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia", certainly not just because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  The only "sources" we have basically only list the name.  That's not enough to write an article that can possibly satisfy WP:V.  When you invoke WP:IAR, you frustrate constructive discussion with an implicit claim that discussion is unnecessary because you know better and the rules don't matter.  Msnicki (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the suggestion that I think this should be kept because WP:ILIKEIT, and the claim that the article violates the verfiability policy is singularly disingenuous. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, and sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE must be applied and the 'rules' ignored. It is long-standing WP:CONSENSUS that all scheduled airlines are notable, just as all verifiable geographical locations are notable; it's a case where the value of the information to the reader and Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer call for the article to be retained - an article which, in this case, is indeed verifable through reliable sources; Flight International is an esteemed, published source, and for further verification see this from the International Air Transport Association. Also, while I can't read Russian, this looks intriguing... The article passes WP:V, uses WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS is that it is notable, something that no amount of WP:WIKILAWYERING will alter. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've repeatedly cited WP:COMMONSENSE. Have you read it?  "There is no common sense ... When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons."  Msnicki (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bushranger and MilborneOne. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: per The Bushranger, MilborneOne, and Mjroots. -- Dewritech (talk)  08:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the keep votes above. As for Msnicki question of finding consensus anywhere on scheduled airlines being considered notable, every AfD on scheduled airlines, past or present, have been retained. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was scheduled? Nothing in the sources provided says anything about whether they were scheduled or charter.  Further, even if they were scheduled, nothing in the guidelines confers automatic notability on airline just so long as it's scheduled.  Nor is the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS particularly helpful guidance on what we should do in this case.  What is helpful in deciding notability, which is what an AfD is all about, is to consider the notability guidelines and the sources.  And the sources just aren't there.  All we have are 3 trivial mentions.


 * Keep. Perfectly good article, the airline existed right? So it must be included with as much information as we have, and in this case there are already 3 references, so not an empty article by any means. Speed74 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sources or just count them? The airlinehistory.co.uk link is to a page listing 44 Armenian airlines, one per line, giving only the name, operating dates, code and status.  It appears they're simply trying to make the list complete, not decide which airlines were actually important.  Further there's no "editorial" oversight; this is just a private site owned by a non-notable individual, David Lyall.   This is the essence of a trivial mention.
 * The aerotransport.org link is database query of the planes the airline owned. That's just registry data that likely gets generated the same as if you sold your car.  It certainly doesn't demonstrate that any human being at aerotransport has ever taken note of this airline.
 * And, most ridiculous, the Flight International link doesn't even mention the subject! Really!  Go look!  It's just a list of airlines but Jupiter-Avia didn't make the list.  This "source" isn't a source at all!  Msnicki (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to say that the airline "Jupiter Avia" in the Flight reference is a different airline! highly unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Sorry.  I really did search in good faith but missed it.  Still, the entire Flightglobal mention consists only of "Jupiter Avia 2" on a long, long list of similar entries.  That also is the essence of a trivial mention.  Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm satisfied the company existed and then folded, but this makes them like lots of other small businesses that fail all the time. From Existence ≠ Notability:  "Inclusion on Wikipedia for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention."  The 3 "sources" provided are trivial mentions, telling only that the subject had 2 planes and where and when they operated, data that the government likely mandated be collected even if no one thought they were interesting.  Each source is essentially a directory or online database equivalents where the objective appears to be completeness.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and it's certainly not a meta-directory of all other directories.  From WP:Run-of-the-mill: "In order for such a commonplace item to be worthy for inclusion in an article, there must be sources provided other than those that would source so many others just like it." Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 17 June 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.