Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Production Air Charter

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about their work in media -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as the company's own self-published press releases about itself, a Q&A interview in which the company's CEO is answering questions in the first person and IMDb, that are not support for notability, with not even one GNG-worthy independent source shown at all. Also likely conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the interviewee. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Bearcat,
 * Simply trying to improve listings alongside similar companies such as:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Charter_Service
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Partner
 * If I may edit anything to better get your approval please just let me know. MichaelPm92 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We need sources talking about them in widely distributed media, such as the New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oaktree b - if you compare with Air Charter Service page it is the same / more appropriately linked sourcing. These pages will be relevant for specific industry when they search online of course. 185.251.190.226 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WAX. "This article isn't any different than that other article" is rarely a compelling argument in an AFD discussion — it's at least as liable to get that other article listed for its own deletion discussion as it is to change any minds about the quality of this article. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have speedy deleted it, PROMO. Non-notable company with unreliable sourcing, I can't find anything about them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Oaktree,
 * Feedback and your time really appreciated - still very much learning with hope to contribute much more to wiki over the next few years and beyond.
 * The sourcing I found seems to be reliable when you compare like to like to the other listings in the same industry - more niche so mainstream media coverage so very unlikely unless for a catastrophic event. With this precedent already set does it not help with approvals on this article? AviationUK92 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Oaktree b. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Helpful page to see, thanks GPL93. 185.251.190.226 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed as stub article. 31.4.206.79 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are valid rationales to keep an article, and the first IP's doesn't even make sense given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a reason not to keep an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of these are valid rationales to keep an article, and the first IP's doesn't even make sense given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a reason not to keep an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2023 (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.