Talk:List of airlines of Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

This same matter was discussed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Notability, with a result that no new guideline was needed.

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

Aviation and Alaska[edit]

Recently, I have been involved in several AfD debates relating to aviation in Alaska. The problem/conflict that has arisen is that some editors seem to believe any outfit that has a few tiny airplanes and at least sometimes flies on a schedule is automatically notable. My view is that this is based on the mistaken assumption that it is impossible to get around Alaska any other way and these airlines are the lifeblood of the communities they serve. While this is true in some cases, there are literally hundreds of tiny airlines in Alaska. There are also buses, land and water taxis, shuttle van services, the Alaska Railroad, the Alaska Marine Highway, and plenty of rental cars. I don't believe that most of these tiny airlines are notable, and giving them each an article would just be more junk content. It has been suggested that there be a list or other article detailing all of these airlines, but to me that seems a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have created this subpage as a place to discuss these issues in order to find some consensus on these issues instead of trading blows at AfD. Any and all input is most welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note In the interest of full disclosure, I feel I should make it known that I do live in a small town in Alaska, and I do work in a transportation related business, but not one related to or competing with any of the companies whose articles I have been involved in editing or discussing at AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't WP:CORP the key guideline here? If these small airlines don't comply with that guideline, or ultimately with WP:N, they are not notable. – ukexpat (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, witness how hard my nom went down here. This is a tiny operation, two small seaplanes, with a total capacity of about 15 people. And, when I nommed the article we are on a subpage of now, it also went down, with lots of talk about how to improve the article and all the wonderful changes that would be made if it survived AfD. I am the only editor to make any substantive changes to the page since that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimey, that's ridiculous - what difference does scheduled vs charter make? It looks like WP:N and WP:RS have gone out of the window here.
By common sense, if the area is so spread out that some of its services are of minute size, then they are not notable enough for separate articles.. I'd accept a charter airline as possibly notable if it served more than 3 or 4 places and had more than 3 or 4 airplanes. Perhaps a combination article like this is suitable to list the others. DGG (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a combination article seems to be a conclusion that would suffice... Frontier Flying Services and its merger partner I would enjoy learning more about. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.161.219 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re-start/general discussion[edit]

Ok, apparently this has gone nowhere and we still have the exact same problem,, so I am re-opening this discussion and will try to find ways to draw a little more attention to it this time. Here are some links to relevant pages:

Here are some examples of other small transportation providers in Alaska

Some of these companies also get government subsidies to transport the handicapped and underprivileged, similar to the Essential Air Service contract, does that make them automatically notable as well? Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that would be "Navin Johnson Notability" (i.e. not practically different than a phonebook entry) that is not "significant coverage" within the expectations of WP:CORP. SDY (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! It took me a minute to get that one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have left links to this discussion at the Aviation, Alaska, and Airlines WikiProjects, and at RFC and the Village Pump. Hopefully this will generate some discussion on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. This is a lousy week to take deserving articles to AfD. The anti-deletionists are up in arms at WT:AFD and don't seem to have noticed that WP:N is all about finding sources. (See Kanjivellam: someone has asserted that it's the Malayam word for rice water gruel, but the article Gruel isn't good enough: it apparently needs its very own article to say "Kanjivellam is rice-water gruel" and to list the astonishing references that have been turned up for it: a book of religious history (it is mentioned once, as an example of what one person drank) and a press release (a charity served it to sick children).)
Yes, every single business has to meet the minimum standards at WP:CORP. If we can't find any reliable sources to write the article from, then what the heck are we going to say in the article?!? I wonder whether every AfD should begin with a statement about what notability means, and why reliable sources are important, and then to ask not "Shall we delete this?" but "Do we have, or can you find, reliable sources that demonstrate notability according to the relevant policy?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there can be consensus that adding 'If an airline has an assigned code (IATA or ICAO), that infers notability and there should be sufficient sources to meet WP:N and WP:CORP' might be acceptable While not addressing the entire problem, it could be a start. Also, I suspect that a lot of editors may not be following this discussion, so if a consensus appears to be developing, you may want to post another pointer in the airline project which is the one that will be affected. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that at least seems acceptable, without prejudice whether or not smaller ones are. As for AfD, nobody can predict what will happen there. If there's an increased rate of keeps, that might be because of an increase in poor nomination. Or it might indicate a generally inclusionist tendency. My personal feeling is that short articles on subjects of borderline notability are a lot less serious as a defect than spammy articles on even notable ones. I also think that the accident of what happens to be available for sourcing is unrelated to notability. Notability is intrinsic, and we just need decent sources for what we have. RSs yes, but that's for the content being Verifiable. The subject is what determines notability. I think we're about 6 months away from an overthrow of WP:N altogether. DGG (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that eventually Wikipedia will become so large that it will fork or splinter into hundreds of projects, each with their own "local" standards, indeed that seems to be what some are suggesting already. While that makes a certain amount of sense to me, it could also cause a lot of problems for persons like myself that don't "specialize" the areas in which they edit. WP:N is the center of a lot of conflict and is not by any means a perfect standard, but I also don't think what one might call the "Kurt criteria" that any thing that can be proven to exist automatically is a valid topic for an article. The problem (which I don't pretend to have a solution to) is summed up by the phrase "information is not knowledge." Simply verifying the existence of something does not explain to the reader why they should care if it exists or not. WP:N was an attempt to set a bar to judge these things by, but a lot of users have interpreted it to mean "if it doesn't get enough hits on a Google search," which I don't think was the original intent. It's funny, having never really picked a "side" I have seen article I thought were valid get deleted, and I have seen article I thought were pointless get kept. By the way, I'm not the boss of this thing, if anyone has a view that is not represented below they should add a section for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we're getting some good input here finally, but so far the only consensus I see is for the WikiProjects to get more involved. How we can make that happen, and how many current participants in this discussion are here because of the notices left at the relevant WikiProjects, I have no idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essential_air_service#Subsidized_Routes this is a starting place for those who belive EAS routes are significant enough to give smaller Alaskan airlines a page. Seems like a common page of smaller Alaskan Airlines with them linking them all together with redirects to Smaller Alaskan Airlines with fleets under 9 seats and 9 aircraft might work

(Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.170.47 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions[edit]

In this section I will outline the various positions and arguments as I have perceived them, and ask participants to indicate their support or lack thereof, along with an explanation of their reasoning and any other remarks pertinent to the topic. Please remember that this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, so detailed responses are the most helpful.

Scheduling[edit]

Any airline that can be proven to operate flights on a regular schedule is notable.

Users that support this statement
  1. DGG (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (assuming that the above statement covers airlines that meet this criteria in the past)[reply]
Users that oppose this statement
  1. (Holding Company Guy!) - No an airline has a callsign, and an independent ICAO designator, and an independent IATA code. 3/3 but on occasion 2/3 will suffice on very rare exception
  2. --Triadian (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - Proving that they operate flights will prove verifiability, but this does not prove notability. You could have an airline that you can prove exists but have no other information about it.[reply]
  3. Notability is more than "existence". On that sort of logic, you could claim that "any business which employs 100 or more people" is notable, or that "any business which provides regular service to the public" is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is a movie theater with scheduled showings automatically notable as well? Notability is largely a function of being able to write a meaningful article on trustworthy sources (i.e. not entirely written based on the company's advertising), and a fixed schedule does not mean one thing either way on this issue.
  5. We are not a travel guide, and an entity could lack any of the criteria of WP:N, but use a "timetable" to establish notability. --Russavia Dialogue 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Air Service[edit]

Any airline that receives funds from the Essential Air Service program is notable.

Users that support this statement
  1. (on the understanding that this is a subset of "scheduled" & therefore implied by accepted scheduled to be notable). DGG (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Holding Company Guy!) - government sanctioned to receive funds, implicit must be an airline in the view of the bureaucracy
  3. Triadian (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - if it can be proven that this is the case, then it is notable as not very many listed airlines apparently receive this. Being a solo airline serving a town is unique, so with sources saying so, it is notable.[reply]
Users that oppose this statement
  1. This rule is unnecessary, because if you've got reliable sources that demonstrate this fact, then you have very likely already met the existing notability requirements. Honestly, if you have EAS funding but didn't end up with cheerful newspaper articles in both your 'hometown' and 'destination' media markets, then you need to fire your publicity staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I noted above, this is "Navin Johnson Notability": it's no different than a phone book listing, and does not demonstrate substantial secondary source coverage. SDY (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WP:N states "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it." Essential Air Service may be important but WP:N is pretty clear on inclusion criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 00:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Air Transport Association/International Civil Aviation Organization[edit]

Any airline with a listing at either of these organizations is notable.

Users that support this statement
  1. (again on the understanding that this includes scheduled airlines only, & is thus a subset of the first qy. ) DGG (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Holding Company Guy!)
Users that oppose this statement
  1. Triadian (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - Again, a listing proves it exists, but not notability. If there are no sources that specifically mention this article in detail or give it unique distinction, then it is not notable.[reply]
  2. The mere fact that it exists is not a demonstration of notability. Notability is based on reliable sources for a reason: Wikipedia is not best served by having a bunch of stubs that say "Look! A business exists!" -- and that's all that this rule would do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, Navin Johnson. SDY (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely not. Chukotavia has neither IATA nor ICAO code, but it is notable because there are many sources that discuss the subject in depth, but this guideline could give notability to entities such as brokers, ground handling companies, customs agents, etc because there are many examples of these types of companies having an ICAO code. Examples of these include:
  • Maryland State Police Air Unit - ICAO TRP - Callsign TROOPER
  • Massey University School of Aviation - ICAO MSY - MASSEY
  • Flight Information Data Base - ZEZ
  • Flight Information Center - ZIZ - INFORMACION
  • Signature Flight Support - SIG
  • Sheremetyevo Cargo (Russian cargo agent/cum sometimes broker) - SHO
  • Riga Air Club - RAK - SPORT CLUB etc etc etc --Russavia Dialogue 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying[edit]

Airlines are more notable than similar ground and water based transportation companies. (While no one has explicitly stated this, it seems to be a prevalent attitude)

Users that support this statement;
Users that oppose this statement
  1. DGG (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (Holding Company Guy!)
  3. Triadian (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC) - I would apply the same attitude toward a ferry service, though merging small articles where possible.[reply]
  4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SDY (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Notability is set by WP:N, not by what we think is important. --Russavia Dialogue 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects[edit]

The relevant WikiProjects to this subject need to establish a firm inclusion threshold for small airlines and air taxis.

Users that support this statement
  1. DGG (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Triadian (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I would argue, however, that such a guideline already exists with WP:V and WP:N, though apparently it needs to be clarified as I think some people are taking WP:N beyond its means. If some of the same arguments previously made for small airline article deletion were actually applied, we'd lose half of Wikipedia's articles.[reply]
  3. I think this would help for clarity, so long as the guidelines created are not more inclusive than WP:V and WP:N. SDY (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This issue really needs a thorough debate at WikiProject level. My "keep" vote on the Alaska Seaplane Service article was purely because there was not guideline that said an airline had to be a certain size before notability was established. As the airline runs scheduled services I'd say this is sufficient reason to keep the article for now. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users that oppose this statement
  1. (Holding Company Guy!) - would helicopter air services be included, business that have lasted at least 4 years maybe???
Users who are neutral
  1. As per User:Somedumbyankee, however, if it is more inclusive than WP:V and WP:N, then no. --Russavia Dialogue 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska exception[edit]

Due to the unique geography and demographics in Alaska, there are hundreds of small airlines and most of them are small local providers without inherent notability, regardless of the above qualifications.

Users that support this statement
Users that oppose this statement
Users that do not accept the premise of the statement

There are hundreds of airlines in Alaska... that is true. Whether they have notability depends on their circumstances. No article should have "inherent" notability, as there really is no such thing on Wikipedia I believe. If we semi-agree that we treat all airlines the same, then we can't give Alaska an exception. I opt for applying the same guidelines to all airlines... whether this means a hundred small Alaska airlines get articles is just a consequence of the standard. Don't assume that there's only one way to prove notability here, as pointed out by WP:N.

Why single out Alaska? There must be other areas where similar circumstances apply - Andes? Australian outback? The issue of notability of airlines that operate scheduled services needs debating at Wikiproject level. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria I would go buy.
  • Fleet size = 7 plus
  • Independent IATA code, ICAO code, and Callsign (2 or 3 minimum)
  • They operate scheduled regular service year round
  • They are EAS recognized by the goverment and meet 2 of the 3 criteria above.(Holding Company Guy!) 32.177.2.196 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Established guidelines[edit]

WP:N and WP:CORP apply here and no further standards need to be created or applied.

Users that support this statement
  1. Triadian (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC) I would say WP:N and WP:CORP do apply here, but clarification is needed. Again, I would apply the same standards to small airlines as ferry services. Notice in WP:CORP that there is a guideline for organizations that serve a large or unique geographic area. My argument is that small airlines provide a service to select communities and their notability rests in the uniqueness of their service and impact on a significant geographic area, not in the corporation/business-side-of-the-airline. I don't believe Hardee's and a Alaska Seaplane Service should have the same business inclusion guidelines.[reply]
  2. Why should small airlines have 'inherent notability'? What's wrong with requiring them to have received some notice (that's why the policy is called notability instead of, say, "importance") before getting an article? Hospitals (saving thousands of lives daily) don't get exempted from this basic requirement. There's no inherent notability exception for schools. No subject is considered inherently notable, and all subjects have to demonstrate reliable sources that do more than prove their existence. No one has ever managed to explain why small airlines are so special that they need to be exempted from this basic rule. And what the heck are you going to base the article on, if you can't find any reliable sources? (Hint: if you've got a couple of good reliable sources, then you've already met the basic rules, and you therefore don't need a special exemption.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Comment: I think we need to clarify here that there is more than one way to prove notability here. Just because these small airlines are companies doesn't mean they have to prove their notability as a company. They can prove it in other ways such as their importance to a remote geographic area of importance or a distinction of being the flier of more state elected officials than any other carrier. As long as there are reliable sources that can prove any form of notability, the article is notable. You're right, no "inherent" bullcrap or Alaska exemptions. --Triadian (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The notability requirements are not a question of the "value" of an organization, they are a question of whether we can write a reasonable article on the topic. There is no such thing as "inherent notability" because it would create articles that cannot be verified. SDY (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why would you have different standards in one area of WP than in other areas, or in general? Don't fool yourself into believing that you can make more- or less-specific guidelines here or in a Wikiproject. All you can do is provide guidelines on how to best interpret the rules for your area of interest. -Freekee (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely support this. --Russavia Dialogue 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support this. No reason to have special guidelines for the notability of companies in one part of the world versus any other. Ehlkej (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users that oppose this statement
  1. DGG (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_airlines_of_Alaska/discussion_of_what_constitutes_an_%22airline%22_in_Alaska&oldid=518168766"