Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bliss Jet

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bliss Jet

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

Company is not yet in business. Sources do not establish corporate corporate notability because they are what the company writes about itself, not what others write about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has received coverage in various industry publications, in addition to the references in article see this from Aviation International News and this from Aviation Week. All are from independent publications and have the company in question as the primary focus, satisfying WP:GNG and the depth clause of WP:CORP, and none of these are self published, all the articles carry bylines from independent authors instead of a PR company, fulfilling the independence clause of WP:CORP. C628 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references that aren't purely PR based announcements? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources based on press releases aren't reliable. The GNG isn't met. I appreciate that the creator of the article wants it to be retained but let's get serious - it's a small private charter service, it's not a commercial airline. "Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" is what the GNG requires, not a bunch of PR department-produced "press". Exemplo347 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I question again how you can come to the conclusion that the sources presented are publicity materials—if they were reprinted press releases as is often done I would agree with you, but they were all written by independent authors in multiple separate publications. In fact, if you could provide evidence that the sources are merely reworded press releases I would appreciate it, because ironically the company itself seems to be using third party coverage in lieu of press releases. I also do not agree that the size of a company has any relevance to its notability. C628 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple - the article you've created is based on, and is referenced to, interviews with the person running the proposed air charter service. Those interviews are not Independent Sources by long-standing convention here. Furthermore, the two links you've posted here are also based on interviews with the same person. I don't see how an experienced editor could have tripped up like this. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm an inclusionist. I don't think it's a trip up at all, but I'm fully aware my opinion with regards to notability is sometimes more liberal than others. C628 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with being an inclusionist, but, when considering Notability, the guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND both specifically rule out the types of sources you have provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose we have different interpretations. C628 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not operating, not notable. No objection to a re-written article if both these criteria were to change.--Petebutt (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. It is a promotional corporate puff piece. -- HighKing⁺⁺15:05, 28 January 2017 (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.