Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Air

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. Consider restoration when sources can be found. Sr13 07:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pegasus Air

Pegasus Air (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable air line. ~ Wikihermit 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete - seems non-notable, private start-up charter with no external references. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a proper airline, as it has just one plane, and that's VIP-airtaxi. Greswik 18:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - just one plane? Seems like a private set-up. Non-noteable as of yet. Lradrama 19:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)'
• Delete Did a little bit of digging on this one. It seems that Pegasus Air is indeed only a single jet, and even then it's for the sole purpose of privately shuttling customers to and from the Ritz-Carlton hotel on the Caymen Islands. Every four star hotel in world has at least one of these, and this one is no more notable than they are. Trusilver 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Ground it per Trusilver. --Targeman 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Retain We are trying to build a comprehensive world airline info source here. It is notable enough to feature in a major world aviation magazine (Flight International - world airline directory) from which it is referenced externally. Delete this and hundreds of similar airline articles will also have to go by extension, thus defeating the purpose. There are many airlines from all over the world listed with only one aircraft, including air-taxi services, medevac services etc. This is also a stub and should be given time to grow eg Trusilver should be adding information discovered, not seeking deletion. Perhaps all need to understand wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines context. Ardfern 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Does that include non-scheduled, one-aircraft operations? This airline doesn't even have a website. There is no mention of it at Airliners.net, arguably the most exhaustive online aviation database/forum. Should every rich guy with a Cessna and a pilot be mentioned on Wikipedia? Just asking. --Targeman 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Ardfern, as a pilot I appreciate the work you do in the writing of aviation articles for the project. But in the case of this, there is no grounds to keep the article, there are ZERO reliable external references aside from Flight International in which all you have to do is hint at having a business license issued by some banana republic to be listed. The entire reason for deleting this can be summed up in with WP:NOT#DIR. Trusilver 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding We are trying to build a comprehensive world airline info source here. No, we are not, because that would be a directory of everything related to airlines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable things, not of every airline with just one aircraft, and you will definitely run into opposition if you create similar articles. Suggesting that articles which violate our guidelines would fall by the wayside is saying that there would be no great loss (to the Wikipedia project as a whole, that is). Of those one-plane companies surely some are notable for some reason and should be kept, but generally I would be cautious of this line of argument. --Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Retain - further comment. I cannot see how a company proposing to operate a 30+ seat aircraft is not notable, particularly in the Cayman Islands which has a small aircraft register. My main point, however, is that this is a stub article (it is not meant to be the finished product)- it is a start off article to be added to and grown as information is found and others collaborate in the article. The stub concept is fundamental to Wikipedia - to delete articles like this, giving them no chance to grow and no chance for others to contribute, seems fundamentally unsound. The energy expended on this debate would be substan tially better used to create articles and to add to stub articles (which is what I am off to do). Ardfern 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I find that an acceptable argument, but tell me... what are you going to do to expand the article? What source material are you going to use? There is none. I know this because I don't come to a position on an AfD unless I have pretty well sourced out the subject. And being that I am in the industry, I can do a pretty good job of sourcing out aviation articles and there simply is nothing to this. It fails to meet the standard of having "multiple non-trivial resources". In fact, the only third-party source it has is Flight International, and that is nothing more than a directory entry. Not to make light of the situation, but unless the plane crashes and kills someone really interesting, I don't see anything that is going to make this company notable in the near future. If it expands in the future (it won't, it's a taxi that has incorporated for tax reasons), then perhaps it can be revisited. Ardfern, read WP:ORG and look at this article objectively, you have been around way too long and have written too many good articles to not see that this fails notability. Trusilver 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Like yourself I have scoured the web etc looking for other refs. I agree there are none today, but there could be some tomorrow or next week - this is the whole purpose of this being a stub, so that it can be expanded later (this is a core Wiki concept). As you acknowledge I have been about this area for a while and I can point to hundreds of airline articles which have even less info in them than this one (not written by me), but this is also because they are stubs and exist to be developed. My last word - other work to be done. Ardfern 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Just because it only has one aircraft is not grounds to remove, all operators have to start somewhere. A SAAB 340 is an airliner bit bigger then the normal Piper/Cessna's used as air taxis. MilborneOne 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is not because it only has one aircraft, it's because it's non-notable. If you can explain how this passes WP:ORG, I will happily change my position to keep. The only source is Flight International, which is nothing more than a directory entry, something that WP:ORG clearly says cannot be used as a source. That being said, there's nothing at all to source this article with. And just because something may one day become notable, doesn't mean it should be included because of that possibility. Trusilver 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - A non-Flight link [1] - although still only another list. MilborneOne 12:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment quoting directly from WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this organization couldn't possibly get much more trivial and incidental than two little directory entries. And just for the record, all kinds of planes are used as air taxis. If this company were flying a Citation or a Gulfstream, I'd still say slam dunk it because it STILL wouldn't be notable. Trusilver 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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.