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.
I am re-nominating this for deletion. The entire fleet of this small, private, local transportation provider consists of two of these. For some reason, many voters in the previous AfD felt that the fact that some of their flights are scheduled automatically confers notability, I don't think it does. The sources are directory listings and passing mentions in articles on other topics. Juneau has a large modern airport, and Alaska Airlines flies large jets there, that is the main air transportation to Juneau, not this tiny air taxi service, of which there are hundreds in Alaska. This is like having an article on a taxi company with two cars or a pizza delivery service. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google and Google News search gives only trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources (commercial sites, directory info, etc.). This fails WP:CORP dramatically, scheduled carrier or no scheduled carrier. Graymornings(talk)19:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Air transportation is absolutely essential in Alaska and are practically its lifeline. The size of the airplanes has nothing to do with notability. I suppose the "local" contention is referring to the service area which in fact it hundreds of thousands of square miles. This German article writes about it too. --Oakshade (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But their total capacity is 12 people. If you were to go to Juneau, or anywhere in Alaska, you will find that there are many, many, air taxis, along with water and land taxis. Most of them are like this one, a very small operation with no inherent notability. I would point out, again, that the Alaska Marine Highway also has it's main terminal in Juneau, and it is the "lifeline" for communities in Southeast Alaska and other isolated coastal communities, not this one air taxi. A lot of our tax dollars go towards insuring it's continued operation because it is so important on the coast.The German article mentions that they flew with these guys, but it is not an article about the organization itself. The concept of what constitutes "local" is in fact viewed somewhat differently in Alaska, since it is such a large place with such a small population. Many people in Alaska think nothing of driving or riding in a boat for hours to get groceries. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTABILITY, secondary coverage does not need to be specifically about the topic, just that the coverage is non-trivial. "Trivial" is defined by WP:N as "passing mention" or "directory listing". The coverage is beyond the scope of either of those. --Oakshade (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an airline, as indicated by its IATA designator J5 and listing in Flight International's directory of World Airlines. Thus, it meets the notability requirements. Nobody said an airline needed to operate Airbus A380s in order to qualify for an article. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question Just to be clear, are you asserting that any airline that is listed at IATA is automatically notable, and if so, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That's just an arbitrary threshold you made up, and is not supported by, well, anything. There is a service [1]on the Kenai Peninsula that runs vans to Anchorage a few times a week, on a regular schedule. Are they notable just because they have a schedule? Is anything that happens on a regularly scheduled basis automatically notable, or does it have to fly too? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, Chukotavia is a good example. I checked all three sources there, one of them was dead link, another was not a WP:RS, and third was an air company directory. This service was mentioned in at least two newspaper publications, plus a directory.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Upon what basis are you saying to keep it? Because of the existence of Chukotavia, or for a "mention" in two newspaper articles. My use of Chukotavia, as you will notice the websearch results, was used as an example as to why the existence of codes do not give notability. If someone was to be tendentious enough to take Chukotavia to AfD to prove a point, I would save it in a flash. But perhaps to use another example. This article was much the same as the current article which IS being discussed at this AfD; it was completely reliant on either WP:SELFPUB or directory-type sources. But because there are multiple independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail, it was possible for me to turn that into this. It is not possible to do so for Alaska Seaplane Service as it lacks the sources which discuss it in great detail, which is what gives notability, not the existence of a code. --RussaviaDialogue07:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to hound you over this, but I don't see how getting some government grant money automatically makes you notable. As I mentioned in the last AfD, there are land taxis that get subsidies to transport the handicapped and low-income/underemployed persons in areas of Alaska without public transportation. These are outfits about the same size as this operation, with 3 or 4 cars, providing the same type of service, but they are not considered notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you hounding me?? I never said anything in particular! You do not need to keep answering every entry you disagree with, especially thoses who haven't said anything to argue with! Being so argumentative is not going to help your case. Trust me, I've done that myself, and it does no good. Right now, there is no clear consensus to Delete, so are you going to bring this back up again in 3-4 more months? And again 4 months after that? At some point you're going to have to let this go. It would be far better to spend your energy with the AIrline Project, and try to clarify the guidelines on what should or should not be considered notable, rather than trying to turn this into a test case. Then if you get some new guidelines approved for airlines, you can take this to AFD again if it does not apply meet the standards set by the new guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks were more directed toward Vegaswikian, who made the same flimsy argument in the last AfD, but I put them under your remarks since you were doing did a "per" vote right under it. I think you've got your facts backward. I'm not the one trying to make a "test case". I think this fails WP:N, other users are trying to apply other guidelines that don't actually exist to exempt this airline from the general notability guideline. I would rather not be so argumentative, but these are spurious arguments not based on Wikipedia policy, and I note that no one has yet specifically refuted any of my reasoning. This is where the AfD process fails us, these votes that are based on on made up guidelines not recorded anywhere are going to turn this into a "no consensus" AfD even though they are not making logical arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment to keep voters/ closing admin You guys are trying to make up a new guideline when we already have one. WP:N I know the hardcore inclusionist crowd doesn't care for it, but there it is. Whenever there is no specialized standard for a particular type of article, the general guideline is used by default. Making up qualifiers like grant money or id codes is an attempt to do an end-run around Wikipedia policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteWeak keep. I have to say delete because I can't find any substantial secondary source for this company. If there was one, then I'd say keep. I think it passes other tests for notability though in ways not mentioned in the article by being the only carrier to certain small airports and small towns. Nevertheless, there needs to be some proof of that. Find that secondary source(s) and I flip to "keep". Edit:The German article listed above seems to validate WP:N loosely, change to weak keep. --Triadian (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record I did in fact try to find a broader consensus on this issue after the last AfD. The discussion is here. I posted links at the Alaska and Aviation WikiProjects, but as you can see, it didn't go very far. I am more than willing to discuss the broader issue at that page or any other appropriate forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that, I have notified them and the village pump, and WikiProject Alaska, and all of you are of course encouraged to participate as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See my comments in the first AFD, in which I checked up on the Bureau of Transportation Statistics report on Alaska Seaplane Service and other carriers. I suppose having some statistics in the T100 data indicates that they're notable and that there's a secondary source, but it's hard to get excited about an airline that only carried 667 passengers in the first quarter of 2008. Then again, we have an article on Minnesota State Highway 226, a 1.5 mile highway in north-central Minnesota whose role in Minnesota's transportation network is probably less than the role of Alaska Seaplane Service in Alaska's transportation network. (And there's Minnesota State Highway 298, which goes straight to prison.) --Elkman(Elkspeak)21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, being a member of WP:USRD, all state routes are notable. One big reason for this is because there are tons of secondary sources... they're called maps and although it's not the best kind of source, it's something. You can't find this airline service on a map... maybe an airport, but not the airline. I've voted weak keep, so I'm not trying to counteract you, just bringing up a comment. --Triadian (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the people arguing to keep this seem to think that verifiability is the only criterion for inclusion that we have, but articles have to pass the notability guidelines as well. Notability is not inherited as being an verifiable airline, the topic still needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to be included. Just because others exist doesn't mean that we can't judge this article on its merits. I can find trivial mentions of this airline and that's it, there isn't the in-depth discussion of the topic that's required for inclusion. Themfromspace (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficent secondary sources exist to write an article (and meet WP:N). It would be nice if the German article made it into this article, but that's not required for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all participants I just wanted to mention again that I am trying to gather consensus on the broader issues involved here, but I'm not getting much response thus-far. Click here to participate. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose of this AfD was to "gather consensus on the broader issues," then I would have to say close this AfD and seek that broad consensus on the proposed notability of airlines talk pages. Starting a specific AfD is not the proper way of building broad consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood. The purpose of this AfD was to decide the fate of this one article. The purpose of the other discussion is to establish a firmer inclusion/exclusion threshold for small airlines in general, especially in Alaska, so that we don't have to go through this again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (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.
