Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator International


 * 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.  A  Train talk 07:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Senator International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am unconvinced that this company meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources or in a specialist publication that is of little use for demonstrating notability. More mainstream coverage (but still local) predominantly discusses the airport the company flies to, rather than the company itself. My own searches have not turned up anything better and so unless I have missed something, I think it falls short of meeting our requirements. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The on-line sources are less than impressive:
 * is the website of the subject
 * This seems to be the only article with a byline. I'm not sure that it mentions anything we would find notable. It's used to support the statement "Since November 2016, "Senator International" has offered its own scheduled service from Munich and Frankfurt-Hahn to Greenville-Spartanburg using a Boeing 747 F."
 * That website doesn't seem to work; all I see is a logo.
 * Mentions a "a noteworthy biz model involving 4 parties". As far as I'm concerned, it's just another way of leasing a cargo plane.
 * is the website of a company the subject merged with
 * is the website of a company the formed a joint-venture with
 * Looks like a press release from München aiport announce that the subject leased a plane from Air Atlanta Icelandic. That's a routine anouncement, not news, and definitely not encyclopedic.
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is the website of the subject
 * is a Business-to-business database
 * TLDR; It's an advertisement about a company that does not meet our general notability criteria and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It is perhaps worth noting that a major contributor is a paid editor (no surprise, really). It takes some poking around, because User:Atomiccocktail and User: Einfach machen Hamburg, who are the same editor, has decided to disclose his COI at meta:User:Atomiccocktail, or rather at de:Benutzer:Einfach_machen_Hamburg but doesn't link to that account from the ones he uses to edit on enwiki. He does mention it in the edit summaries. Also note that the existance of an article on the subject in the German Wikipedia does not establish notability. German wikipedia has different policies and guidelines than enwiki. Mduvekot (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.
 * This article is based mostly on information given in DVZ. The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. If information of company’s website is used, it is to service the reader: “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”, see WP:CORP.
 * Turnover, branches and recognition in their business field indicate the relevance of this company in its market. Not only FedEx or Kuehne + Nagel are players there. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on Senator International should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead. Mduvekot (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mduvekot anf fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourcing about this international transportation company showing in the footnotes is sufficient for a pass of the GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Mduvekot above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 15:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Undeclared paid editing according the the enWP rules--the editing must be disclosed on the enWP for enWP articles, and at least at the enWP, running a company doing paid editing makes it necessary to declare oneself a paid editor for every article the company produces. Given that the references are inadequate, there is no basis for keeping the article. It's not the least odd for us to have a campaign against paid editing without explicit declaration, but our interpretation of   COI policy.   DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no paid editing, which is not declared. The opposite is true. Every edit that has been paid is named as such. If edits were not paid, of course it was not said that this post was a paid edit. I would liked to know exactly which paid edit I had concealed. Atomiccocktail (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2017 (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.