Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunrise 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. postdlf (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sunrise Aviation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, does not even make WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. The article's references are all either the company's webpages, directory listings plus one article about a pilot that mentions the company briefly in passing. A search for references turned up only blogs and directory listings, nothing to make WP:N. The type of training offered by this school: private, commercial, instrument, multi, aerobatics and so on is offered by thousands of other very similar flying schools around the world. The article is quite promotional in tone and seems to run afoul of WP:SPAM as well. Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject California, WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * keep with revisions &mdash; after some additions of news-citations, I think the article is a candidate for keeping, but there is some significant trimming of detail which should be done; for instance, the details of classes of aircraft ... this is both fully sourced from subject-published sources and not relevant in the degree of detail provided; this is not a directory as to what businesses have what types of craft for rent or training. I have not undertaken the _removal_ of any information, but I have added support for some pieces and added some additional information from non-selfpublished sources (these do not show up in standard searches -- you need to go to local newspaper archives to find them). --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - that is good that you found those archived articles and added them, but none of them are articles about the company itself, they are all about other subjects and just coincidentally mention the company in passing, so it still doesn't make WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete had a go at a tidy up to remove some of the un-encyclopedic content but could not really see anything that makes Sunrise any more notable than thousands of other flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with Revisions This is opening a can of worms. There are many aviation articles that can be deleted based on ones interpretations. I would hate to lose the ability to link some near obsolete aircraft to some small enterprise that still flies one of the last airworthy models. The article and many like it offer a brief history that is useful when doing research. It is short sighted to go around deleting articles because a small group (see Group think) determined in their opinion it had little or no value. I see to much rigidness in Wikipedia and not enough thinking outside the box. Ask this question: Does it do any harm? If not, do not operate on the patient. We all have opinions of what is worthy and burning articles is not the best answer. Pheasantpete (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: You probably should review Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and in particular WP:NOHARM. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to make notability or meet other grounds for inclusion. G11 in my mind, as it reads no differently the an advertisement for any of numerous flight schools/FBOs. Caffeyw (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with Revisions This really is opening a can of worms. There are many articles across Wikipedia that can be deleted based on the nominators interpretations. It would be silly to lose the ability to create articles on any future FBO's based upon the overwhelming desire for Mr. Hunt to delete this story. As was said before "The article and many like it offer a brief history that is useful when doing research" and now with the links that have been ref'ed since this nomination it should be taken into consideration that this is one of the FEW remaining Aerobatic schools of this caliber in the world. I have contributed THOUSANDS of High Quality photos to Wikipedia over the years and it would be really sad burning them with the witch-hunt logic that has been put into this removal request.(talk)--WPPilot 04:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not a nomination for loads of articles just one flying school in California, deleting this article will not stop anybody creating one on another flying school if it is notable. So the question is are Sunrise notable, and it appears this hinges on the aerobatic training, so far I cant see any evidence that it is, as for being one of the few in the world http://www.iacusn.org/schools/ lists another 18 just in California. So all we are looking for is a reliable reference that Sunrise is different. Not sure what images has to do with it we dont deal with images at Articles for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is hardly opening a "can of worms". Wikipedia policy requires that we only have articles on subjects that are notable in that they have sufficient third party references. This one clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. As far as articles being "deleted based on the nominators interpretations", that is precisely why we have AfD, so that wide community input is sought and decisions made on consensus, not on any one editor's "interpretations" of anything. I have reviewed a number other flight school articles and so far the ones I have found do have sufficient third party references and so there is no intention to nominate them. This is a single discussion on one single article. Also your statements that I have an "overwhelming desire...to delete this story" is not accurate. Where is your evidence that this is some sort of vendetta against this article? The reason we start AfDs is to have a rational discussion about the article involving as many interested editors as possible to get as wide a range of opinions as possible. The state of the final debate will not be assessed by me, and, if the article is found to not meet the standards to keep it, then it will be deleted by the closing admin, not by me. Furthermore your characterization of this debate as a "witch-hunt" is offensive and treads very close to the line of a personal attack, so I would suggest you temper your words above to discuss the actual topic at hand and not attack the motives of other editors for questioning the article you started. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, because WP:CORP is not met. As Ahunt has already pointed out, this flying school has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable third-party media.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the keep !votes here, I'm concerned that there is sockpuppetry going on here, as they both read very much as if they were written by the same editor - using the exact same phrasing and tone. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is really silly, I used some of the other users comments and now I am a sockpuppet. I have no idea who Pheasantpete is, none of our edits are even in the same areas, yet The Bushranger seems to think otherwise. Just Silly and not any way do I have anything to do with that user and I have no idea who that person is. --WPPilot 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no significant coverage about this company. Sourcing are to article which mention them, but that does not constitute significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable, self promotional, POV, you name it!!--Petebutt (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2013 (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.