Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following questions were posed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Notability_guidelines_for_aviation_companies to garner some interest in defining a notability standard for airlines and aviation companies, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion of the subject

I think , if nothing else that the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training as "no consensus" should help motivate editors to come up with some solid guidelines, to avoid these sorts of outcomes in the future. It should be possible to apply the resulting guideline easily and clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly, and this notability guideline will never get off the ground (no pun intended). Airlines are already covered in WP:CORP, and of course by WP:GNG. No additional specific criteria for airlines is necessary. A company which passes any of the criteria listed below, along with an absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", is not a notable company. SnottyWong ^verbalize 14:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it is silly it is building a consensus for a guideline for project members to interpret all the good stuff you have referenced but with particular relationship to airlines and aviation companies, many such guidelines have been created around wikipedia to help editors with specialised subjects. Also remember CORP and GNG are just guidelines not policy but this guideline is not likely to go against the spirit of those guidelines just provide more specialised guidance. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with both of you. WP:CORP is a good standard and anything we come up with here should be more restrictive, not less restrictive, than that. Not sure if we need something more restrictive, though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answering the questions below I am wondering if we are going to accomplish anything worthwhile in establishing a standard here beyond WP:CORP. For instance, if we establish something that is less restrictive then we are going to have fights at AfD with those who apply WP:CORP. If we apply something more restrictive then we will have to justify deleting articles that comply with WP:CORP, based on not making some number of aircraft or weight limit. Again this will make for difficult problems at AfD when the organization has sufficient refs available. The more I think about this the more I think that just rigorous application of WP:CORP may be the best and most easily defensible solution. As a bonus it will align us with the rest of Wikipedia better as well. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right but does it do any harm in expanding the meaning to WP:CORP as it relates to airlines and aviation companies, sought of supplementing it. Certainly should not disagree it with it although if you read the small print all CORP says is it should be notable so most of it repeats the notability guideline but it does add example relating to companies in general and Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations So all CORP is doing is giving examples to meet Wikipedia:Notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support having this conversation so that a consensus can become clear that we either do or don't need a special criteria for airlines, and it is not acceptable to make up criteria out of thin air just to "win" at AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I am going to achieve anything other than opening a can of worms; I have been getting a bit peeved over a seeming lack of consistency (e.g. being told that an article with only one dodgy website as a ref is a keeper because 'there aren't that many of that type of company'), but I suppose each case has to be treated on its merits. Anyway, my answers are below. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alaska Seaplane Service finally went down for lack of coverage in reliable sources. On this point I fully agree with YSSYguy, we need some consistency. Problem is, folks keep trying to make up new inclusion criterion on the spot and manage to use these imaginary criteria to steer one AFD after another into a "no consensus" decision. I do not think we need an airline specific criterion, WP:CORP and WP:N are sufficient. The various suggestions below to do an end run around finding reliable sources by using industry standards for demarcating types of airlines or declaring a listing in a directory to be sufficient evidence of notability directly contradict our established guidelines and therefore cannot be used unless we modify the already established guidelines to accommodate them. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the offering of scheduled services automatically confer notability?

Scheduled services should give weight to notability for smaller airlines operating aircraft under 5,700 kg MTOW (an industry standard size demarcation). Any airline operating scheduled services with aircraft above 5,700 kg MTOW should be automatically notable. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, in that most scheduled services attract media attention which then results in the creation of reliable refs, unless the media just reprints company press releases, in which case it doesn't. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The idea that anything that runs on a schedule is automatically notable is sheer nonsense. Industry standards for categorizing different kinds of air carriers are utterly meaningless in determining notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mjroots, except that the automatic notability point be the 19-seat aircraft category, which can straddle either side of the 5,700kg division, even within different models of the same type. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a size-of-equipment cutoff point for air charter companies?

Yes, at 5,700 kg MTOW and above. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if we did it would eliminate a lot of notable companies that fly smaller equipment. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nonsense. An arbitrary metric that has nothing to do with establishing notability. What counts are sources, not the size of the airplane. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general yes, at the 19-seat point, when looked at in conjunction with below. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a size-of-fleet cutoff point for air charter companies?

No, size of fleet should not matter. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn't be a determining factor. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should have a "number of non-trivial reliable sources" cutoff. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes (I'm not talking about your companies flying 180 Scousers or Jutlanders to Benidorm for a week in the sun here); IMO it would be very hard for a company operating a small number of aircraft on charters to be notable, regardless of the size of aircraft (and I think I might have been a bit hasty in creating de Bruin Air). YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a size-of-equipment cutoff point for airlines?

No if it is a licensed airline no reason why the size of equipment matters. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 5,700 kg MTOW. For airlines operating pre WWII, twin engined aircraft or operating and aircraft capable of seating 5 or more passengers. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada "airline" means the carrier is certified under CAR 705 and that applies only to the operation of aircraft of "8,618 kg (19,000 pounds) or for which a Canadian type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers" or "a helicopter that has a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 20 or more" Yes, we have helicopter airlines! If we are going to impose cut-offs for what we call an airline, then we can't exclude what a national authority calls an airline. I think it would be safer not to impose arbitrary limits here and stick with the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 5,700kg MTOW is a worldwide industry standard. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5,700 kg is a worldwide standard (based on FAR 23) for what constitutes a light aircraft or small aircraft for type certificate certification standards, not necessarily for air carrier operating certificate use. Canada's standards for air carriers are not that unusual and are fairly similar to other countries, including the USA. The whole range is:

CAR 705 "airline" 19,000 lbs and up, or 20 passengers and up.
CAR 704 "commuter" 19,000 lbs or less (50,000 lbs for jets) and 10-19 passengers.
CAR 703 "air taxi" and single engine aircraft, multi-engine aircraft up to 19,000 lbs that seat 9 or fewer passengers.
CAR 702 "aerial work" any size aircraft that is used for carriage of helicopter Class B, C or D external loads, the towing of objects or the dispersal of products and carriage of no passengers (crew only).

The reasons for these classes are complex, but, for instance, 20 passengers and up is the cut-off for requiring a flight attendant. Commuters and air taxis don't need flight attendants, but airlines do. Most other countries have similar sorts of cut-offs for airlines etc, because this is all based in ICAO SARPS. I think that this means we have to consider an airline what the national authorities consider an airline.- Ahunt (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MilborneOne, assuming he is talking about the holder of an appropriate class of AOC. In response to Ahunt's comments, Australian regulations do not distinguish between Commuters and Airlines, CASA issues Regular Public Transport AOCs, Charter AOCs and Aerial Work AOCs in this country. RPT AOCs are divided into high-capacity and low capacity, with the dividing line being the Fokker 50/Dash 8-300 class of aircraft, these being the smallest high-capacity aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a size-of-fleet cutoff point for airlines?

No if it is a licensed airline no reason why it cant have just one aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. No need for a fleet size cutoff. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, some airlines start off with just a few aircraft and may be notable in terms of making WP:CORP. We would have a hard time excluding them when there are amble third party refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, number of reliable sources is more important for our purposes than number of airplanes. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a size-of-equipment or size-of-fleet cutoff point for for flying training organisations?

Probably not, a flying training organisation needs to have other notability the size of the fleet and type of equipment is not one of them. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, most flying training schools have small aircraft, some have refs and most don't. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, per above comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a flying school with a small fleet or with only light aircraft is generally not going to be notable, regardless of whether a government minister officially opened it. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the operation of turbine aircraft automatically confer notability?

Dont think the type of equipment would confer notability. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need to consider the powerplant used. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is doesn't. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's meaningless as far as notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is mention in Flight International sufficient to confer notability for an airline?

Yes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a mention. If there is a serious write-up then yes, but otherwise we may confer notability that WP:CORP doesn't support. I think if we are going to have a different standard then it has to be more restrictive than WP:CORP and not less so. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We might as well list everything in the phone book at that point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly a reliable reference, except that the World Airline Directory and World Airliner Census seem not to distinguish between airlines and air charter companies and additional verification would be needed. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is mention in Flight International sufficient to confer notability for an air charter company?

Yes. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - needs more than just a passing mention, same as above. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We might as well list everything in the phone book at that point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait just one minute here. You are actually saying that merely being mentioned in FI is enough for an scheduled airline, but is not enough for a charter? Why? I don't see how the value of the source is affected by what it is reporting on. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about a failed start-up that doesn't get airborne an automatic delete?

In most cases yes but some may have had a widespread media coverage and interest so we may need to consider that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes, an airline needs to actually operate a service before it is an airline. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "it depends". In some cases these are still-born concepts and which case, yes, delete. in other cases they may be notable because they involve scandals, government funding or criminal charges that make them a worthwhile story to tell. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there are multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. More than one "spectacular failure" has it's own Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes; I disagree with Beeblebrox - there could be all sorts of references to a start-up airline, but if nothing ever comes of it, where's the notability? As MilborneOne and Ahunt say there may be other considerations - I wouldn't think that would happen very often though. YSSYguy (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They could be notable because they failed. I can't say I've ever seen this exact case of a small airline that never came about but was widely reported on nonetheless, but it is possible. To say otherwise is to directly contradict WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stalled

And so, on the third attempt to come up with some sort of guideline for small airlines, we have once again stalled out like a poorly maintained Cessna. The only result I see coming from these various discussions is that there is no consensus that an airline-specific notability standard is needed and that WP:N and WP:CORP will have to do. So, in the future users who make up new notability standards for airlines in the middle of an AFD should be informed that there is no such guideline/policy/whatever and that they will have to use one of the established guidelines we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that approach! - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for those of you that missed it my previous attempt at this is at Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska. It was more Alaska-centric at first but ended up dealing with many of these same issues, with essentially the same result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.