Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solairus Aviation


 * 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. After disregarding the input of socks Courcelles (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Solairus Aviation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Advertisement for a non-notable charter company that fails the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Sources are from the corporate website and press releases. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Addressing the three line items in the deletion notice, the article now has corrected and additional references to third party publications, the most recent addition being an article located at http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/22537/petaluma-based-solairus-aircraft-on-growth-trajectory/?tc=ar

The company is highly notable in the aviation services industry as indicated by the amount of coverage in industry publications and news alerts. Especially notable are the company's executive staff who have long been considered pillars of the business aviation industry.

The article has also been purged of puffery and has been limited to the objective facts. Zachobrien1 —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep I edited the fleet text to have a more neutral voice and I eliminated the services offered section which did seem like an advertisement. Additionally, the company is very notable in the business aviation industry. These types of companies do not get a lot of mainstream attention, but they are actually quite well known in the luxury goods market. EWildt Note: EWildt is the author of the article and is a Special Purpose Account. User is currently blocked for running sockpuppets here.


 *  Keep  Thanks for providing an additional reference Zachobrien1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EWildt (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - your "keep" opinion was established in an earlier post. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep Added another third-party reference. Hope it helps!!! JaneCoff —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment and  have been blocked as sockpuppets of  (see Sockpuppet investigations/EWildt). VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. Considering the sox, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm disappointed that sockpuppetry had to come into play here, but the article looks to have a fair amount of notability in it. This, this, this and this are all examples of independent reliable coverage, of which the first three at least would qualify as significant. The only issue could be WP:NOTNEWS, but since the sources all refer to different events that shouldn't be an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had interpreted those articles as press releases authored by the company; it sounds like their source may be technically independent from the company. They are very industry-specific (and in the case of the second article local); do they show that the company has "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education"? VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - the refs cited are all company, the refs mentioned above all look like press releases to me. The article looks like a COI attempt to promote the company, at least up until the most recent edits on it. If kept it would require a serious rewrite and removal of corpspam material. Fails WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * RELUCTANT KEEP Considering that not all the refrences cited are company propaganda, this company is notable as a "start-up" but I agree with AHunt that WP:COI is involved and a rewrite is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete - just one of many aircraft charter brokers, cant find any reliable references that it actually own any aircraft just manages and charters. Not a new start just a re-named 1990s company. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete just another aviation company using WP to tout for business. I agree with MilborneOne, it appears be be just a broker with no aircraft of its own. Of the four "independent" references cited and referred to by Alzarian 16, the first, third and fourth are word-for-word copies of company press releases; if one removes word-for-word press release excerpts from the second cited article there is not very much of it left. YSSYguy (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt Non-notable 1-year-old company without significant independent coverage. Of the four sources cited by Alzarian, only one is authored by named staff at a real newspaper - and that one is from the North Bay Business Journal, the company's hometown press. The Air Charter Journal articles read like uncredited press releases, and the Airport Business article is cited to Business Wire, a press-release medium. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2010 (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.