Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix East Aviation, Inc.


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources provided are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I have discounted keep arguments relying on notability of students. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Phoenix East Aviation, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of any reason to think this company is notable, unless perhaps there is a consensus that I'm not aware of that all similar schools are presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Note that the proper location for an article about this company, Phoenix East Aviation, was deleted multiple times in 2008 and is currently "create protected". If this page survives AFD, I am requesting that the closing administrator MOVE it. If it closes as "delete" I am requesting that the closing administrator do some magic so both this page's delete log and Phoenix East Aviation's delete log show "deleted per AFD" or something similar, so re-creations can be speedily-deleted. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails GNG, esp. WP:CORP, looks like a vanity piece. Based on previous deletions, this should have been filed as a candidate for speedy deletion under criteria G4 (it was previously deleted under G11 by --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not this time, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". However, the deletionist side of me knows about G11 is the reason I bypassed PROD and went straight for AFD.  The inclusionist side of me knows that I could very well be wrong and AFD is likely to get more attention - and therefore more people who know things like "are flight schools generally considered notable" - than a PROD would.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete flight schools are not really notable and nothing to indicate this is not the same as thousands of other flying clubs (also note G4 doesnt apply as it is nothing like the deleted article which at least had some content). MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This aviation school has produced some notable pilots and a footballer named Harald Brattbakk has taken pilot training from this aviation school so I guess it has some weightage to keep its page on wikipedia. Kicker911 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A business is not notable because someone notable was once one of their customers. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Phoenix east aviation is a notable institute http://www.crunchbase.com/company/phoenix-east-aviation and also mentioned in other articles Watsonmickey (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The web cite you mention consists largely of content written by that company. Therefore, it contributes nothing to determining if the company meets WP:Notability or not.  The phrase "Phoenix East Aviation" is used in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=%22Phoenix+East+Aviation%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&profile=advanced 5 other articles] as of this writing.  None of those uses, either individually or in combination, do much to show that this company meets WP:Notability.  Independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are needed to show that a company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a side-note, several other aviation and career-education schools listed in those articles need to be assessed for notability. .  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of media coverage to PEA, from sites which are independent of the subject which can be easily found on any search engine. Few among them to mention are:
 * http://www.pilotcareernews.com/flight-training-in-the-usa/
 * http://www.nycaviation.com/tag/phoenix-east-aviation/
 * http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=115
 * http://generalaviationnews.com/2010/11/21/phoenix-east-aviation-orders-da42-ng/
 * http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-17/news/os-plane-crash-volusia-county-20110216_1_flight-instructor-phoenix-east-aviation-plane-crash
 * http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=0133d9e7-f4a0-4bba-8a1f-f230e105ee2f
 * http://halldale.com/news/airline/phoenix-east-aviation-celebrates-40-years#.Uu2eBz28AtM
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watsonmickey (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of these are totally unsuitable for determining notability:
 * pilotcareernews: written by company employee.
 * nycaviation (see also http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/02/flight-instructor-and-student-presumed-dead-after-plane-crash-off-florida-coast/ ) "mere mention."
 * diamondaircraft: Press release of a company that has PEA as a client.
 * orlandosentinel: "mere mention." Duplicates coverage of nycaviation link.
 * aero-news: Practically a verbatim copy of diamondaircraft link.
 * Two of these MIGHT be useful in determining notability depending on the journalistic independence and editing standards of the author and publisher:
 * generalaviationnews
 * halldale
 * However, these two links taken together do not provide anywhere near the significant coverage needed to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability. Even if they did, it is unclear if they can be considered independent, reliable sources for the purposes of demonstrating WP:Notability.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Check this link: http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20120924/business/309219938?tc=ar#gsc.tab=0
 * you may find some notability about PEA here.Watsonmickey (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is better than the ones above but I would ask you to read Notability (organizations and companies). In general, local news outlets like this and, for that matter, industry publications like the "halldale" link you provided earlier, count less than a national general-purpose news outlet with a wide distribution.  The news-journalonline story is also weakened by its reliance on statements by company officials - it comes across as a "re-written press release" rather than as "hard news." If this identical article had appeared in Time (magazine) it would carry a lot more weight. What you can do to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability is to find several articles like this that cover different aspects of the company.  At least a couple of these need to be from non-local, non-industry sources such as Time Magazine. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment training individuals who later become notable doesnt make the flying school notable, notability is not inherited by association. Nearly every flying school can probably claim they trained somebody of note but that doesnt make them notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, while the sources provide above make that a "barely" I don't see it passing the bar. Notability is not inherited by having Wikinotable graduates. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A famous astronaut who has walked on moon Edgar Mitchell has attended PEA training http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/105862522?q&versionId=119291866. I guess this information should be added to PEA's page to improve its notability.Blueitalianscooter (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone else said, notability is not inherited. However, schools and organizations which many notable people are associated with may be more likely to have received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources than they would have otherwise received.  Such coverage may center around the astronaut having attended this school, but it must be significant and from independent, reliable sources.  It is this coverage, not the fact that they are associated with notable people, that demonstrates that the topic is notable.  By way of comparison, is this astronaut's elementary school, high school band, etc. considered notable merely because he is an alum of that school and that band?  No.  If that school and that band are "notable" it is because they have received the necessary coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:22, 7 February 2014 (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.
 * 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.