Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miwok Airways


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Miwok Airways

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While its obvious that the PR person who typed this article was creative and understood the basics of writing articles in such a way as to avoid attention, it clear that this article's primary purpose serves as an advertisement for the company and individual (yes, a picture of said person exists in the article) however thinly-veiled it may be. No aircraft exist, no aircraft are planned to exist, the company is not presently active, and the owner's notability is listed as being an obscure dot.com company owner and a former Israeli air traffic controller. This wiki article is aviation advertising spam. McA (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:COMPANY ThePointblank (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Remember the global notability guideline. If the Los Angeles Times, a reliable source and newspaper of record, thinks the company is important enough to write about, then it is notable by Wikipedia standards. And Aviation Today is also a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Howcheng who created the article is if I remember correctly, a long time reliable Wikipedian, so I'm pretty sure he's not the PR person for the company, but at the same time I am surprised this article made it to DYK on September 17 when the company wasn't even running for another 1.5 months. That said, the subject did appear to have received more than advert media coverage and the fact it is the only company offering ultra-short flights to beat traffic jams seems somewhat noteworthy too. I'm leaning towards keeping, but it's pretty borderline. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * DYK's standards are 1,500 characters and inline citations to reliable sources, regardless of the content of the article, so the article's appearance on DYK says nothing about the subject itself.  howcheng  {chat} 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but with the attention DYK gets, I would have expected to see it submitted for deletion much sooner if it was deleteable. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as author. I do not work for them (for the record, I work at Move.com as a programmer). I simply read the article in the LA Times, to which I subscribe, and found them interesting as the first company to offer on-demand short-hop flights with pricing by seat instead of by plane. Of course the company doesn't have planes: That's their entire business model; they're really the middleman, not the actual pilots. The photo does not come from the company, either. If you had investigated, you would have seen that it came from a Flick user, who apparently is not related to the company either. You are seeing conspiracies where there aren't any.  howcheng  {chat} 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. LA Times article is substantial and written by a staff writer -- this isn't PR filler you'd see some other places (such as the two newspapers I subscribe to. *grin*) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The relevant notability policy is "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I would say that the LA Times article itself is significant coverage (it certainly wasn't trivial). The fact that it has coverage in Aviation Today only increases its notability. DigitalC (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 0n the basis of  howcheng 's explanation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2008 (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.