Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyBig

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 no consensus. Most of the keep voices speak to GNG rather than NCORP so are not really relevant but the usually reliable source analysis from HighKing (which I also usually give a lot of weight too) doesn't quite get this over the line given reservations expressed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlyBig

[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)

Primarily, the company launch news, too early to create the page. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The airline has been in operation for nearly two years now and there appears to be plenty of sources that meet WP:ORG. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey FormalDude, I was going to !vote Delete but I thought I'd ask you to link to any two sources that meet NCORP first. Thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  ––FormalDude (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FormalDude's sources (except the Mirror) seem GNG-compliant. It does not matter how new the subject is if GNG-compliant sourcing is around already. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the Bangalore Mirror? ––FormalDude (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't about the reliability of the source, but rather that the company wasn't brought up in that article (maybe you linked the wrong one?) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I did link the wrong one. Thanks, updated. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by FormalDude. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a commercial company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply in addition to GNG. NCORP has specific and particular criteria which must be met in order to establish a company's notability. NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep and significant coverage containing in-depth information *on the company* and also containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail as follows:
- This in the Bangalore India Times examines the future potential of an airplane manufacturing company, HAL , headquartered in Bengaluru. This is based on comments by Big Charter's CFO (affiliated with the topic company). There is no "Independent Content" or in-depth information in that article and it is not a significant article about the topic company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
- This in the Shillong Times is based entirely on information provided by the topic company and the airports authority (AAI) or anonymous "sources". The article is not attributed to a named journalist. Articles relying on anonymous sources are not WP:RS reliable. There is also no "Independent Content" showing an independent opinion/fact checking/investigation/etc which is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. Article fails WP:RS and ORGIND.
- This from The Economic Times is entirely based on information from an exec, Ratan Ambhore, affiliated with the company. It contains no "Independent Content", merely regurgitates the announcement, fails ORGIND.
- This from Smart Aviation relies entirely on an announcement and information provided by the company with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from The Shillong Times has no attributed journalist which makes it a questionable reliable source. The article itself appears to be in possession of a complaint made by Shillong Airport to the AAI about the topic company and regurgitates the main issues of the complaint, augmented by additional information from an anonymous source "from Shillong Airport". There is no in-depth information on the company. Article fails CORPDEPTH, ORGIND and RS.

None of these sources contain sufficient "Independent Content" and in-depth information about the company, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your dismissal of the The Shillong Times as unreliable and not capable of basic fact checking has no basis, and I'd suggest you take it to WP:RSN if you truly believe that. Your dismissal of all of these sources independence is also unfounded. Just because there's a quote from a company employee does not mean the source is not-independent, especially when most all of them provide significant in-depth background information.

And those sources were just skimming top of the bucket, there's plenty more.

––FormalDude (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please don't misrepresent what I said. I pointed out that there was no attributed journalist for the Shillong Times - but I also pointed out that the article relies on anonymous "sources" and that there' no Independent Content, just repeating what the sources said. I did not say they were unreliable nor incapable of basic fact checking, please read what was actually written. There is *nothing* in that article, nor any of the others, which satisfies the requirement for "Independent Content" where original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. Regurgitated announcements and PR is not "Original Content". You also misrepresent the point vis-a-vis quotes. There's nothing wrong with an article using quotes so long as the article *also* meets the criteria - including containing "Independent Content". The problem arises when the article relies entirely on information provided by execs and the company and has no Independent Content. Finally, listing another 7 references which all suffer from the exact same issues doesn't help. If you're so convinced of certain references, simply point to WP:THREE particular references and point to particular paragraphs where each contains in-depth significant details about the company built on original/independent opinion/fact checking/analysis/investigation that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said about The Shillong Times "There is also no "Independent Content" showing an independent opinion/fact checking/investigation/etc". The source is a reliable established newspaper of record that can surely be trusted to be independent, and that is who it is attributed to. It doesn't matter that's there no author. Furthermore there's no consensus or policy that says the use of an anonymous source makes an otherwise reliable publication not so.

None of these sources are "regurgitated announcements and PR" and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.

That's not how WP:THREE is intended to be invoked (per its author: "Are you trying to argue that a topic needs three sources to be notable? Nope, that's not what this is about."), but here's your three sources:

1. Bangalore Mirror. Attributed to Hemanth CS, independent editor.

Flybig, a regional airline that is gearing up to have its first commercial flight by mid-October under the Ude Desh ka Aam Naagrik (UDAN) project, would become the first airline to launch a new service in the COVID-19 era.

2. Simply Flying. Attributed to Pranjal Pande, independent reporter.

India’s flybig is all set to begin operations today. The carrier will fly its first scheduled route from Indore to Ahmedabad, using an ATR72. Flybig aims to connect smaller towns under the government's UDAN scheme, which offers airlines subsidies for flying such routes.

3. Mint. Attributed to Rhik Kundu, independent correspondent.

The airline will operate turboprop aircraft (a turbine engine that drives an aircraft propeller) like ATR72 and Q400, which can accommodate 70-80 passengers, for regional routes like Shillong-New Delhi, Indore-Ahmedabad, and Indore-Raipur, which have seen good growth potential, especially at a time when the domestic aviation sector is recovering from the covid hit.

––FormalDude (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent Content" is unconcerned with the reputation of the publisher. The focus is on the content. Your *assumption* that reliable/established sources surely can be trusted is misplaced and translates as a form of carte blanche on certain publishers (e.g. Its in the NYT/WSJ therefore must meet the criteria for notability due to the "reputation" of the publisher). This is invalid. Nowhere is this assumption mentioned in NCORP. "Independent Content" must be *clearly attributable* to an unaffiliated source, we don't rely on assumptions. So yes, while it does matter if there's no author, nowhere have I ruled out a source based on that one aspect alone.

The article in Bangalore Mirror isn't about the topic company - as said previously it is about the future prospects for an airline manufacturer based in the region. WP:ORGCRIT requires references where the topic company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the company. This article is neither about the topic company and the single sentence (because that's more than 50% of what is in the article *about* the airline) you've highlighted is neither deep nor significant.
The article in Simply Flying has a lot of information but appears to appropriate information from other references which is links to. It immediately refers to an earlier article in the same publication (which in turn links to other sources) as well as MoneyControl (which gets all its info from the CEO), Planespotter.net and other articles from Simple Flying (the same publication). It does have one paragraph where the author appears to have checked the website, personally, and looked up the prices for a one-way ticket to Ahmedabad so there's at least one aspect of the article that is clearly attributable to the author directly. Everything else in the article is available in other articles and in other sources - I really can't see how this meets ORGIND without making huge assumptions and ignoring other earlier articles containing the same info.
The Mint article dated Jan 2021 relies entirely on information/comments from the CEO. The paragraph you've pointed to contains nothing new. We've seen previously that in Sept 2020 the company had planned to use ATR 72s and it was reported by the CEO in an interview in Dec 2020 they'd taken delivery. It was also reported earlier that they'd leased a Q400. We've seen previous mentions of the impact of Covid. What exactly do you see in that paragraph that shows that any of that information is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company - especially seeing as it had all been announced previously? The rest of the article clearly relies on information provided by the CEO. There is no "Independent Content" whatsoever in this article, just a regurgitation of information already known, new quotes/info from the CEO and a summary.

I don't think we'll agree here. For me, I can clearly see that all of the references can trace the information/data to company PR and announcements and interviews/quotations of one sort of another (although it does take a wee effort to actually look). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we won't agree, since you're continuing to baselessly claim these sources don't have significant coverage and independence. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You've had plenty of opportunity to provide clear-cut page numbers and paragraph numbers to make your case. I suppose since I've called you out on your attempts to misrepresent what I've said, name calling is about all you've left. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you any names nor misrepresent what you said, please don't cast aspersions. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Length of operation has nothing to do with notability unlesss you make the general case of a company that has been about for so long that your parents know about it, making it generational, hence you see a large number of very old companies having articles on Wikipedia. Looking at as it company, its fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS, two aspects of WP:NCORP. I looked at two blocks of refs and not one of them is a real secondary source. It is either PR (it's a perfect flightplan), schedule listings, press-released based information or in-world, i.e. ref for company regs. No secondary sourcing at all. Looking at the block, more scheduling and press-releases. The references above are from press-releases, for example " Flybig, India's newest airline, to begin operations today: All you need to know". Straight-up PR. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't say I agree with the characterisation that no source is independent. Containing quotes from employees doesn't make a source not independent, relying on third parties or anonymous sources to obtain information doesn't make a source not independent and the assertions that these are all regurgitation of press releases, announcements, other PR material, etc is unsupported. Most of the material in the sources (the list of news articles) provided by FormalDude are simply presented as facts without attribution to any other party, hence they are solely attributable to their respective publications and authors. To state that this material is not independent is to work on an assumption that all of these publications and their authors are either engaging in undisclosed promotion and/or churnalism, i.e their reliability is questionable.

I will not say that such an assumption is completely unjustified, if anything a certain degree of skepticism is necessary in this area but one can not make this assumption and still claim that it doesn't concern the reputation of the publisher. Indian media does have a significant problem with undisclosed promotion, paid news, etc but to sort through that, one requires a case by case consideration and not a blanket dismissal of all sources. Different publications have different standards, practises, reputation, etc and they should be brought to WP:RSN if one thinks there are problems with certain publications. As far as I am concerned, the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:NORG, there are some weaker sources, some routine coverage in the list but there is independent significant coverage as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:ORGIND, the onus is fully on the source to contain "Independent Content" that is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Quotes from employees are not independent. Regurgitating PR is not independent. If you're saying that these sources are OK then link to them and point to the paragraphs where it contains in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are trying to get at but when a source says something in its own voice, then that material is "clearly attributable" to that source, you seem to have just assumed that it is "regurgitating PR" for which I see no basis. Quotes themselves form a minor part in those articles where they are present and the sources are also already linked above. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a link to whatever it is you believe meets NCORP.... when you provide that, we can debate something concrete...I've already responded to FormalDude's points above. According to what you're saying, if an article summarises information, that makes it their "own voice" and meets NCORP - that isn't the case at all, that does not make that article meet WP:ORGIND's requirement for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources from Siasat, the Shillong Times, and Bangalore Mirror look quite decent to me. Yes, there's statements from the company, but there's also material in the papers' own voices, and it's not as trivial information as it's made out to be. I usually give a lot of weight to HighKing's analysis, but I think they're being too stringent here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 28 September 2022 (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.