Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaiserAir

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. North America1000 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KaiserAir

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

KaiserAir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary source. No notability. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:Notability (organizations). ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!【Click to Discuss】 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaiserair Receives FAA Certification". The Weekly of Business Aviation. Vol. 74, no. 14. 2002-04-01. p. 157.
  • "KaiserAir; News of promotions, appointments and honors". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 93, no. 6. McGraw Hill. 2003-12-01. p. 105.
  • David Rimmer (2001-04-01). "KaiserAir at Oakland International Airport". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 88, no. 4. McGraw Hill. p. 33.
  • James E. Swickard (2003-01-01). "KaiserAir opened a NiCad battery service shop". Business and Commercial Aviation. Vol. 92, no. 1. McGraw Hill. p. 30.
  • "Otto Wright Named Manager, Oakland FBO, KaiserAir". Marketing Weekly News. 2011-05-14. p. 232.
  • "Kaiserair Won Approval To Install TAWS On Gulfstream Aircraft". The Weekly of Business Aviation. Vol. 74, no. 12. 2002-03-18. p. 134.
  • Edward H. Phillips (2001-02-26). "The FAA Has Authorized Kaiserair Inc to install the Universal Technical Standard Order (TSO) Terrain Avoidance and Warning System". Aviation week & space technology. Vol. 154, no. 9. p. 69.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on 4meter4's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references added by 4meter4 mean that GNG is now met. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    1. I'm seeing a bunch of references to Business and Commercial Aviation in 4meter4's sources. Is this a trade magazine?
    2. The Weekly of Business Aviation is a paywalled source. Is this a trade magazine?
    3. Is Aviation week & space technology a trade magazine?
    4. Is Marketing Weekly News a trade magazine?
    5. Is The Weekly of Business Aviation a trade magazine?
    6. With the exception of Marketing Weekly News, all of the sources listed by 4meter4 appear to be published by Aviation Week Network. Our article for the network describes it a a New-York based B2B publishing and event production company. Are the publications that it runs editorially independent from each other in a meaningful way, so as to actually constitute them being multiple sources for purposes of notability?
My initial reading is that they're all trade magazines, and that the Aviation Week Network has significant editorial overlap. However, I would like to make sure before commenting further. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting if we could pinpoint when it became a separate entity from Henry J. Kaiser's many-tentacled Kaiser Industries Corp. (Kaiser Shipyards, Kaiser Steel, Kaiser Permanente, Kaiser Motors, Kaiser Aluminum, Kaiser Jeep, Kaiser Broadcasting, Kaiser Aerospace, etc.) --Worldbruce (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: 1980, $150,000 [1]. Lot's of other interesting history in that source if you feel like working on the article. SpinningSpark 14:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on HighKing's comment. No harm in relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The9Man (Talk) 09:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I now have access to other databases and I'll check the sources listed above. Hope to have it done in the next day or so. HighKing++ 14:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been able to check most (but not all) of the references listed above. I couldn't find the 2nd the 3rd references (both from Business and Commercial Aviation) listed by 4meter4 above but I've found the rest. Worldbruce above says the references he listed are all "in-depth, independent, reliable sources" but I suspect by "independent" it only covers "corporate" independence. WP:ORGIND also required "Independent Content" which means company announcements and PR don't meet the criteria and those references all regurgitate company announcements. Everything I could check was entirely based on a company announcement or was a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information. The pdf posted by SpinningSpark, in my opinion, is the best of the lot but it appears that all of the in-depth information was provided by Guerra, it isn't clear that there's any Independent Content but even if this gets the benefit of the doubt, nothing else comes close. For those saying that there's plenty of sources to meet NCORP - finding sources that meet our criteria for inclusion does not rely on volume. There's just not multiple source that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Finaly relist to allow discussion of 4meter4's sources and Highking's rebuttal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The nominator is a sockpuppet who was evading a block when he made this nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. HighKing says he "suspects" the sources provided by WorldBruce lack "corporate independence" without actually having read the sources. That's a failure of AGF. Accessing US news sources from here is a complete nightmare because most US sites don't comply with European Union data protection law and refuse to serve the page for legal reasons. So I've only managed to check one by massaging TOR – that's the Independent article on KaiserAir at Livermore Municipal Airport. About half the article seems to be sourced from the Livermore Public Works Director (Lanphier is extensively quoted) and the other half is sourced to opponents of the KaiserAir extension. Only one paragraph covers what KaiserAir themselves say they are going to do. Clearly not a recycled press release, but a well balanced, in-depth article covering all points of view. SpinningSpark 13:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes you'll get the articles on the wayback machine. The Independent article talks extensively about the application but *all* of the in-depth information about the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH) is sourced from the proposal submitted by the company - the paragraph starts with "In its proposal, KaiserAir, ....". Not a recycled press release, but from the point of view of the in-depth information, a recycled proposal. HighKing++ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, so it's an in-depth discussion about the application of the company to expand operations at this airport. To me, that counts towards notability. It's not enough by itself, but that is not all we have available. SpinningSpark 23:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, if the proposal was the topic of the article, fine. You admit that it's "not enough by itself" and since NCORP doesn't allow you to combine references to reach notability and that each reference must meet all the criteria, then I am correct to point out that none of the references meet the criteria therefore the topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say you are correct, my opinion differs. The encyclopaedic content on any company is largely the activities of that company. What NCORP does not say is that a source must cover every aspect of a company to count towards notability. Your claim that I am trying to combine sources to establish notability is a strawman argument. I am not, it was simply a recognition that more than one source is required. In any case, my analysis of this source was only aimed at countering your assertion that all the sources lacked corporate indepence, not that this was the only, or main, source of notability. SpinningSpark 14:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is nonsense to suggest that comments by locals and other interested parties about a rise in pollution at an airport as a result of a proposal to relocate an airline there would count towards notability. What NCORP *does* say about the criteria for establishing notability is that it must include in-depth information *about the company* and this article (and none of the articles you've posted referenced) does that in a way which also includes "Independent Content". Either you've posted a link to referenced an article which relies entirely on information provided by the company or an exec *or* you've posted referenced a link which says nothing in-depth about the company. You're welcome to a different opinion on what the guidelines should or should not include or allow but AfD isn't the place to expand NCORP. HighKing++ 17:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Excuse me, I haven't posted any of the sources under discussion, so accusing me of posting deficient sources is an unwarranted calumny. In fact I have only posted one source in this discussion, and that was to answer a question by Worldbruce on the date the company separated from the Kaiser organisation. It was not to support notability (although you commented yourself that it was the best source so far). SpinningSpark 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In my opinion, this article has improvement opportunities. I found multiple recent sources on KaiserAir:
  1. Pleasanton Weekly
  2. Pleasanton Weekly
  3. Pleasanton Weekly
  4. Pleasanton Weekly
  5. Pleasanton Weekly
  6. The Independent
  7. The Independent
  8. The Mercury News
  9. The Press Democrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommmyy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Doesn't matter the number of "hits" you find on Google, we need references that meet NCORP criteria. Also, the Pleasanton Weekly is not a national paper, it is a local paper with a small weekly circulation. Leaving that aside:
  1. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the topic company's proposal to move their HQ but it has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  1. Pleasanton Weekly discusses concerns relating to pollution and noise but also has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  2. Pleasanton Weekly provides an update about the proposal, again no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  3. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the plan and proposal to relocate in detail. Again, lots of detail on the proposal, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  4. Pleasanton Weekly discusses the council's decision to review a noise report connected with the relocation proposal. Lots of detail on local objections, no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  5. The Independent is 5 sentences long and the last 3 sentences are details for an upcoming zoom call and dial-in information. Fails CORPDEPTH
  6. The Independent discusses the proposal. I dealt with this reference above but it fails WP:ORGIND because the detailed information originated from a proposal submitted by the topic company and none of the rest of the information is directly related to details/information that can assist in establishing notability
  7. The Mercury News article discusses the proposal in detail including fears and objections but doesn't provide any in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  8. The Press Democrat article refers to a jobfair being held in a hangar owned by the topic company. It is a single mention-in-passing. Not sure the thinking behind including this but it fails CORPDEPTH in any case — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KaiserAir&oldid=1053779915"