Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl 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 keep. – bradv🍁 05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Aviation

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

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

No indication meets WP:GNG. According to article, company operates a whopping three aircraft and has eight employees. Loksmythe (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pearl Aviation may only have 3 aircraft now, but it has some coverage over its history, and notability is not temporary. Pearl Aviation is a subsidiary of the Paspaley company, previously held contracts in the Northern Territory and New South Wales to operate air ambulance services (known as Royal Flying Doctor Service in NSW), and still holds a contract with Airservices Australia as part of a joint venture to survey their aircraft navigation systems across Australia. There appears to have been some coverage of Pearl back in and around 2010 when the NT Government put the air ambulance services out to tender and Pearl lost the contract because of its ageing aircraft and concerns with the company. See articles more generally here by way of example: report on donations to the Liberal Party by Paspaley at the time the contract was tendered, mention of the company in a history of air ambulance services in Australia, radio report on safety concerns raised by Pearl, more on runway safety, ABC article on the cancellation of the contract with Pearl, on the tender process, a mention here on the tender process, coroner report article about a death caused by a delay on a Pearl flight, on its Airservices Australia inspection services, article in 2016 about it downsizing, another one from 2016. I haven't done any searching of its potential history relating to Skywest either - which might have even more coverage. At worst, if the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, the content (which is sourced - though could be improved by the above) should be merged to the main Paspaley article as part of their operations. Bookscale (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The size of an organistion does not by itself indicate for or against notability. It seems to have more than three aircraft now.

There are also these to consider:

There may be quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response As per WP:GHITS, posting links to show that there are "lots of sources" is no indication of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused There is also Virgin Australia Regional Airlines which seems to be sharing some of the same history as Pearl Aviation. Indeed the link for Skywest Aviation via Skywest Airlines (Australia) in the first sentence of the Pearl Aviation#History redirects to Virgin Australia Regional Airlines. I cannot make head nor tail of these two articles and how they are related or not. There needs to be a thorough review and partial rewrite of both perhaps to properly sort out the relationship or not. Perhaps we should be looking at a merge of both articles? Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it seems the company that originally ran Pearl Aviation split into two - one took the passenger services (and became Skywest, now Virgin Regional); the other took the other services (e.g. RDFS, navigation system checking services, etc.) and is what is now known as "Pearl Aviation". Having compared the Virgin article and the Pearl one, there seems very little overlap. A bit of a tidy up of the first few sentences in the history section should adequately do the trick. I wouldn't support merging as it would confuse the Virgin article given it is now the subset of a very different company! Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With the Paspaley Company article. Which doesn't even seem to mention it, because it doesn't seem to have notability on its own otherwise. Since all the citations seem to be to the Paspaley companies site or a government one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: - what about all the other sources I and Aoziwe have found? Have you read the other comments so far? Bookscale (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, With Aoziwe's nla.gov source it seems you need a library account or something somewhere to view any of the articles it lists. So I can't really speak to those. Except that most of the sources seem to be from either Australasian Business Intelligence or Australian Nursing Journal. Both of which seem to have questionable notability. A nursing journal probably isn't reliable because it isn't really related to the industry. Just nurses that happen to fly in planes. So its not authoritative in relation to the subject. Other listed sources seem to be regional, like the North Queensland Register. Regional news outlets aren't good sources from my understanding. With your articles, the first one wouldn't load. The second isn't about the company. There's only a quick mention of it and there isn't real details. The third link says "page not found." So that's a nope. The forth is about The Australian Nursing Federation and not the company. Which is only mentioned twice briefly in the first two sentences. A random death on a plane doesn't seem notable even if there is an article about it. It's borderline sensationalism anyone and doesn't meet neutrality because according to the article "the poor service may have contributed to the death", not clearly caused it. The downsizing articles don't seem important either. Especially not on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is the third source. I don't agree with your assessment that just because you can't find a source it is worthless. And to suggest a Nursing Journal is not a reliable source about a company that carries out medical aviation services is ridiculous. Bookscale (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what exactly your referencing, but I'll assume its not being able to access the articles in the .gov list. if you can't find or access a source its worthless because you can't add the relevant content from it to the article. You can't just cite a source devoid of qouting it either. Even if the source is about the subject. Both those things are pretty obvious. As far as the nursing journal goes, it doesn't matter if they carry out medical aviation services, it matters if they discuss the company in a substantial way and in the article you cited they didn't. Sorry, but Wikipedia articles aren't bibliographies of every document that might have mentioned a subject in passing. So, I don't really care about nursing journal articles (or any other source) that I can't access, read, or use to add content to an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's a demonstration that there are sources available - which is adequate for an AfD. Seriously, I really feel like giving up participating in these sometimes, you do all the research to demonstrate notability and yet come across editors who just can't be bothered and nothing is ever good enough. Bookscale (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: Your making it all about you and missing an extremely important point here because of it. One of the options in an AfD is to merge an article if the topic has enough coverage make it a notable subject for Wikipedia but not enough to warrant its own article. Ultimately its about improving the quality of Wikipedia. Not just confirming your opinion about a topic or keep an article when its un-warranted because "I put work into it." So, its about making A determination of notability, not THE determination of notability that I want. If it is merged that doesn't mean your work isn't for nothing. As the citations would still be used. I can understand your frustration though. Its pretty frustrating to take the time to review the sources someone provides just to mongered as a sexist like Aoziwe did to me below. We just have different opinions and that's fine. Don't let it discourage you though. We are all on the same side here. Also, read my quote below from the notability guidelines on having sources and that meaning the topic automatically warrants its own article. Hint, it does't and I don't think the sources do in this case. Again though, that's just my opinion. Your free to disagree. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are demonstrably sources available, and in reliable publications. Just because they are not on line does not mean that they are of no value. Discounting publications with Just nurses that happen to fly in planes I suggest is either blatant sexist bias or gender neutral profession snobbery. Sometimes one needs to actually physically go to a library and read stuff. The sources are sustained and broad. There is quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. The histories of the two subjects need a rewrite to properly explain such, but AfD is not about CLEANUP. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: Per WP:NEXIST which you yourself cited "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." So its not just purely about the raw numbers of sources. I said multiple times my main issue was with the lack of enough coverage about the company in the nurses journal. It didn't have anything to do with the profession, let alone the sex of the people in it. If the article was about the topic of medical aviation fine. I would care less since that would mean there would be enough specific details about the actual topic of the article. Which is a company not a profession. As it is though, that's not the case. Your free to disagree, but I did take the time to read through your and Bookscales sources when I could have been doing other things to make an informed opinion. Discounting it as sexist when I was extremely clear about why I made the conclusion that the article should be merged for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with gender, I didn't even mention it, is pretty disgusting. It's also actually sexist IMO to automatically equate nursing with gender. Let alone to use the sexism card if it comes up when sex had literally nothing to do with the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are free to agree to disagree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally. Making baseless claims of sexism, not so much. So hopefully you don't do it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable, and it was was formed and started operations in 1964 as Skywest Aviation. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (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.