Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taquan Air: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:23, 24 February 2011

Taquan Air

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another local airline in Alaska. All sources used in the article are the subject's own website. Nothing any better found in a search. This airline operates 8 small planes in Southeast Alaska, which has lots and lots of little local airlines like this because there are few roads in the area. Fails notability guideline for businesses as there do not seem to be any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unlike some of the other Alaskan air services that have been put through AFD, there does seem to be a bit more on this company although not enough for me to say keep. A 2007 air crash ([1], [2], [3], [4]) generated coverage but really its news about an air crash rather than about the company. It gets local coverage, but that doesn't really establish notability. The most significant sources towards notablist are [5], and [6] where the company is used as a case study or example for entrepreneurship and small businesses. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You can book seats on this airline on Expedia. The air accident also shows that Taquan Air has been in the news. More work needs to be done to the article but I think it is a keeper. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that you can book tickets does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument that one crash confers notability doesn't convince either. Such crashes are pretty common in Alaska, there are a few dozen every year. There are a few thousand small planes up here, flying in some very harsh conditions over rugged terrain with few opportunities for emergency landings. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete. Just found this reference which says that the airline is no longer in business: [7] Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Being defunct is not a reason for deletion, just as much as being able to book tickets is not a reason for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I called the phone number listed here and here, and got a recording identifying themselves as "Taquan" and saying flight schedules were on their internet site. The BBB page says, "The phone numbers the BBB had for this company are disconnected..." So I don't think we should rush to press based only on the BBB page. Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passenger airlines in the US are not lacking for being noticed, especially since 9/11. I had no trouble in adding two references and adding interesting material about this airline. I found a logo installed for the Russian Wikipedia and plugged that in. Plus they have been around since 1977. This is an ideal slightly obscure, referenceable, and notable topic for Wikipedia. I found a report from the US government about a crash of one of their airplanes in 2007. This particular accident seems to have worried the Ketchikan tourist industry bringing 900,000 cruise ship tourists to Ketchikan. So clearly this accident is of interest to US citizens who fly airplanes, tourists with the resources to take cruise ships to Alaska, the cruise ship industry, and the tourist industry of Ketchikan, as well as the air tour industry in Alaska. Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Perhaps airlines in general my not lack for notice, but this one still does. A report on the business being sold in a local paper doesn't establish notability, nor does an NTSB report after an aircrash. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply On the one hand, you will be looking at the fact that this company employs eight people ref with annual revenue of $2.5 million. But I see multiple elements here that widen the scope of notability. As a citizen of the US who has flown in an airplane, I note that such air travelers have a personal safety interest in that their government regulate public air transports. Under policy, the NTSB report has status as a national media noticing this company. This report has the names of five people that all concurred—the safety practices of the company are a target of the report, that the company's safety practices were not being adequately regulated by the FAA. In citing "ineffective FAA oversight of air tour operators' adherence to required weather minimums", the report draws attention to another government agency, the FAA, with a duty to notice and regulate this airline, that is not currently otherwise referenced. Another unexplored avenue in the article is that the name of this airline comes from native people ref. There is also the company Kootznoowoo Inc ref started four years before the founding of their airline, such that there is 27 years of history missing.

Previous reviewers in some Alaska-airline AfD nominations have put forward the idea that there is an inherent notability that comes from being a public transport. I agree. To give the force of reason for this view I have looked at the sociology concept and article [institution]. This article leads to [public service], which states, "Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors". I think the newspaper article draws attention to this status of Taquan as being an "institution", My main concern is to keep the jobs in Ketchikan and keep Taquan going, Salazar said. Taquan Air is a long-established brand name recognized for meeting the demands and expectations of Southeast travelers... Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable guideline in gauging notability for a company is WP:CORP which specifically states that there is no inherent notability, so this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines and changing that is outside the purview of this AFD. That the company has 2.5 million in revenue is not an indication of notability, nor is the fact that it employs 8 people. Especially when referenced from a directory entry. Nor is the age of the company. As for the NTSB report, we look to reliable sources for notability as they exercise editorial judgement of topics to cover. The NTSB is mandated to investigate every US civil aviation air safety incident. The fact that the NTSB has a report on this air crash is not because of editorial judgment, but because they must do it. So I fail to see how this establishes notability. And local press, is still local press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq, There is more I could say, both in agreement and mostly disagreement (while acknowledging that you have more experience in these issues), but I want to reply on just one point. I believe that WP:Notability is just as applicable or more applicable than WP:CORP, and states that topics must be "notable, or 'worthy of notice'." This is the fundamental guideline, virtually any criteria may be applied to define "worthy of notice" that we as editors agree as applicable. Likewise any criteria may be applied upon agreement by the editors to decide that an article is NOT '"worthy of notice", even though the guidelines may suggest that the topic is notable. As I see it it all falls back to the force of reason and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to general notability, we don't use "virtually any criteria". General consensus as documented in WP:NOTABILITY that we use "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability. Both general and corporation specific notability guidelines are relvant, but I don't see how either is met at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. Earlier you said, "...this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines..." But, WP:N says,

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
And WP:N states, "Article...topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."
Reading on, WP:N states at the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <the WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice (emphasis added). Here it is clarified that the fundamental guideline is "worthy of notice", and that the WP:GNG is one example of satisfying the fundamental guideline.

The point is that it is not necessary to change policy to consider at AfD that public passenger airlines are in the sociological group called institutions, are part of the public sector regulated by the US government, and that each public passenger airline has status nationally. Just how and how much this influences other criteria, I'm not prepared to say, nor given the continuing stream of new sources I've found (Taquan was on the cover of Anchorage-based Alaska Business Review magazine in 1997) do I expect that there is a need to do so, but I think that this consideration should be on the table, and that this consideration should be available to related AfD discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *'''Keep'''&nbsp; Passenger airlines in the US are not lacking for being noticed, especially since 9/11.&nbsp; I had no trouble in adding two references and adding interesting material about this airline.&nbsp; I found a logo installed for the Russian Wikipedia and plugged that in.&nbsp; Plus they have been around since 1977.&nbsp; This is an ideal slightly obscure, referenceable, and notable topic for Wikipedia. I found a report from the US government about a crash of one of their airplanes in 2007.&nbsp; This particular accident seems to have worried the Ketchikan tourist industry bringing 900,000 cruise ship tourists to Ketchikan.&nbsp; So clearly this accident is of interest to US citizens who fly airplanes, tourists with the resources to take cruise ships to Alaska, the cruise ship industry, and the tourist industry of Ketchikan, as well as the air tour industry in Alaska.&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 **'''comment''' - Perhaps airlines in general my not lack for notice, but this one still does.  A report on the business being sold in a local paper doesn't establish notability, nor does an NTSB report after an aircrash. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
-:::'''reply''' On the one hand, you will be looking at the fact that this company employs eight people [http://ak.businessprofessionals.com/ak/hfbp25k7nmvwzc6q03y4jsg1d.php ref] with annual revenue of $2.5 million.&nbsp; But I see muliple elements here that widen the scope of notability.&nbsp; As a citizen of the US who has flown in an airplane, I note that such air travelers have a personal safety interest in that their government regulate public air transports.&nbsp; Under policy, the NTSB report has status as a national media noticing this company.&nbsp; This report has the names of five people that all concurred&mdash;the safety practices of the company are a target of the report, that the company's safety practices were not being adequately regulated by the FAA.&nbsp; In citing "ineffective FAA oversight of air tour operators' adherence to required weather minimums", the report draws attention to another government agency, the [[FAA]], with a duty to ''notice'' and regulate this airline, that is not currently otherwise referenced.&nbsp; Another unexplored avenue in the article is that the name of this airline comes from native people [http://www.taquanair.com/pages/about_history.htm ref].&nbsp; There is also the company Kootznoowoo Inc [http://www.kootznoowoo.com/?page_id=7 ref] started four years before the founding of their airline, such that there is 27 years of history missing.
+:::'''reply''' On the one hand, you will be looking at the fact that this company employs eight people [http://ak.businessprofessionals.com/ak/hfbp25k7nmvwzc6q03y4jsg1d.php ref] with annual revenue of $2.5 million.&nbsp; But I see multiple elements here that widen the scope of notability.&nbsp; As a citizen of the US who has flown in an airplane, I note that such air travelers have a personal safety interest in that their government regulate public air transports.&nbsp; Under policy, the NTSB report has status as a national media noticing this company.&nbsp; This report has the names of five people that all concurred&mdash;the safety practices of the company are a target of the report, that the company's safety practices were not being adequately regulated by the FAA.&nbsp; In citing "ineffective FAA oversight of air tour operators' adherence to required weather minimums", the report draws attention to another government agency, the [[FAA]], with a duty to ''notice'' and regulate this airline, that is not currently otherwise referenced.&nbsp; Another unexplored avenue in the article is that the name of this airline comes from native people [http://www.taquanair.com/pages/about_history.htm ref].&nbsp; There is also the company Kootznoowoo Inc [http://www.kootznoowoo.com/?page_id=7 ref] started four years before the founding of their airline, such that there is 27 years of history missing.
 :::Previous reviewers in some Alaska-airline AfD nominations have put forward the idea that there is an inherent notability that comes from being a public transport.&nbsp; I agree.&nbsp; To give the force of reason for this view I have looked at the sociology concept and article [[institution|[institution]]].&nbsp; This article leads to [[public service|[public service]]], which states, "Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors".&nbsp; I think the newspaper article draws attention to this status of Taquan as being an "institution", ''My main concern is to keep the jobs in Ketchikan and keep Taquan going,'' Salazar said. ''Taquan Air is a long-established brand name recognized for meeting the demands and expectations of Southeast travelers...''&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :::::Whpq, There is more I could say, both in agreement and mostly disagreement (while acknowledging that you have more experience in these issues), but I want to reply on just one point.&nbsp; I believe that [[WP:Notability]] is just as applicable or more applicable than [[WP:CORP]], and states that topics must be "notable, or 'worthy of notice'."&nbsp; This is the fundamental guideline, virtually any criteria may be applied to define "worthy of notice" that we as editors agree as applicable.&nbsp; Likewise any criteria may be applied upon agreement by the editors to decide that an article is NOT '"worthy of notice", even though the guidelines may suggest that the topic is notable.&nbsp; As I see it it all falls back to the force of reason and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia]].&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::With respect to general notability, we don't use "virtually any criteria".  General consensus as documented in [[WP:NOTABILITY]] that we use "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability. Both general and corporation specific notability guidelines are relvant, but I don't see how either is met at this point. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 22:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
+:::::::I think you are missing my point.&nbsp; Earlier you said, "...this position put forward in other AFDs has no basis in current guidelines..."  But, WP:N says,
+::::::#"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."&nbsp;
+::::::#And WP:N states, "Article...topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."
+::::::#Reading on, WP:N states at the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <the WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually '''worthy of notice''' (emphasis added).&nbsp; Here it is clarified that the fundamental guideline is "worthy of notice", and that the WP:GNG is one example of satisfying the fundamental guideline.&nbsp;
+:::::::The point is that it is not necessary to change policy to consider at AfD that public passenger airlines are in the sociological group called [[institution|institutions]], are part of the [[public sector]] regulated by the [[FAA|US government]], and that each public passenger airline has status nationally.&nbsp; Just how and how much this influences other criteria, I'm not prepared to say, nor given the continuing stream of new sources I've found (Taquan was on the cover of Anchorage-based Alaska Business Review magazine in 1997) do I expect that there is a need to do so, but I think that this consideration should be on the table, and that this consideration should be available to related AfD discussions.&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 06:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' references look fine to me. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)