Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beond

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. Blablubbs 15:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Beond

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Beond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Beond

Airline that is about to begin operations, and does not pass corporate notability, likely because it is too soon. The sources include interviews with corporate officers, and what appear to be reprints of corporate handouts.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Thetravel.com	Information page about new airline - Reads like corporate handout	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Simpleflying.com	Information page about the airline - Reads like corporate handout	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	gulfnews.com	Interview with CEO	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	Flybeond.com	About Us page on web site	No	Yes	Not applicable	No
5	www.smh.com.au	Interview with commercial operations officer	No	Yes	Yes	No

There is also a draft. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be improved when the airline begins operations and has independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Maldives. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Draft until they start operation, seems TOOSOON. Says they're operational in September 2023, so a few weeks from now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: The subject passes the WP:ORGCRITE by virtue of following sources:

1. The subject has been published on CNN
2. The subuject has closed US$17M seed funding which was published on FINSMES Yahoo Finance
3. And there are multiple other sources which can be used to prove its notability. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurathDubai (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify as per ATD and per TOOOSOON. Delete none of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The CNN source is based entirely on PR and interviews with execs and has no "Independent Content" sufficient to meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH requirements (regardless of what has been said below). Announcements about closing seed funding are also run-of-the-mill and in any case are also PR (says it clearly on the Yahoo link), fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Delete This airline has not yet proven itself as noteworthy. Im open for recreating the page if they gather further independent attention, though. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I expected to !vote "draftify" or "delete" based on my experience that startup airlines still not flying are usually "TOOSOON" and seldom notable. (Also, the nominator, Robert McClenon, is almost always right about stuff.) In this case, the CNN article is legit and, while positive, it's independent; the writer discusses other airlines, etc. I can't ignore it. On the other hand, it takes more than $17 million to get jets in the air. (Perhaps they've raised more since then?) So my "keep" is a "very weak, skeptical keep" based on a technicality and I'm OK if this article is draftified for now (unless the existing draft is better).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment For the most part, the CNN piece is not "independent" because *all* of the information *about* the company is regurgitated from company sources. The last section contains comments/opinions from two industry experts (great, Independent Content) but (in my opinion) is nether "significant coverage" or "substantial coverage". It is also a requirement for "multiple sources" - what other sources in your opinion meets NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have a question about the CNN piece, because to me it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH: ~250 words of analysis on the company's business decisions and prospects. Can you say more about why you don't think this is significant coverage? Suriname0 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Where precisely int the ~250 "words of analysis" can you see analysis about the company's business decisions and prospects assuming you're referring to the last section "A Niche Market". What precisely is contained in that section which you would classify as "in-depth" analysis *about* the *company*? Rob Morris spends most of his time talking about the route, not the airline, and doesn't make any mention that his comments are in relation to the airline. Mike Stengel's analysis is slightly better but boils down to only two sentences which we can see is directly related to the company (start at "By being tied to...."). This falls well short of being sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - coverage exists in the USA publications: [1], [2], [3]; Hong Kong publication: [4]; UAE publications: [5], [6], [7]; Maldives publications: [8], [9], [10]. Meets WP:GNG and keep per WP:HEY. 2605:59C8:259B:1D00:FC65:574:C94F:8AD0 (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like Beond has done a good job getting some earned media coverage recently.

  I have some operational questions. Has Beond taken physical possession of their planes yet? Do they have a firm start date for flying? Have they started selling tickets? Are there any reliable sources addressing these issues?

  Thanks, —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: “earned media” as I understand it is a term of art. Another way to put it is free publicity through news reporting. It doesn’t necessarily mean the news articles are churnalism on the one hand or reliable on the other. You hear this phrase a lot during political races.

When I used this phrase above, I meant it in this neutral sense.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think you are applying NCORP criteria which apply since this is a company. Here's an analysis on the sources:

• There are a number of CNN articles, largely all the same. The one you've referenced has been discussed above but essentially, the content about the company is sourced from the company (pics have been provded by the company for example) and an exec interview (fails ORGIND) and the two industry expert comments fall well short of what we require, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• The The Clayton County Register article is regurgitated PR and contains nothing new from the information published in lots of other articles which at least quote the CEO (e.g. the CNN article). Fails ORGIND.
• The Times and Democrat relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs and acknowledges the information was sources from the CNN article - even to the point of copying the sub-headlines. Fails ORGIND.
• SCMP article (archived here) is similar to the CNN article in that all of the information about the company has been provided by the company/execs (fails ORGIND) except for some comments from industry experts which fall well short of being substantial or significant or in-depth (fails CORPDEPTH).
• The National News is regurgitated PR, borrows contents from Bloomberg and fails ORGIND
• Maldives Voice article is totally based on PR and an event to open their offices. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
• Maldives Business Times is PR, fails ORGIND
• Travel Weekly is PR, fails ORGIND
• Gulf News relies totally on comments/information from the company/execs. Fails ORGIND.
• Arab News is PR. Fails ORGIND

Sure, the company is getting mentioned - same as any other company being launched, but it is all driven by PR and interviews. There are some industry comments which are Independent but these fall well short of meeting CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As described by A. B., this is earned media. Doubting a reliable source without any evidence and labeling it as PR gives the impression that you're searching for excuses to reject references. Arab News, Gulf News, The National, The Times and Democrat, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, all are in-depth and very reliable. If you doubt the reliability of a source, please initiate a discussion about that source on WP:RSN. Thank you. 98.97.56.73 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Anon IP, just FYI but "earned media" invariably relied entirely on information/interviews provided by the company/execs, often generated by marketing activity, and not only fails ORGIND but is precisely the reason for the existence of NCORP guidelines to assist editors in assessing media for the purposes of establishing notability. It has nothing to do with a source being reliable and everything to do with the content being independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A. B. I tried to dig a bit deeper. Answers given below:

• Start date is defined: Nov. 9, 2023. Source: [11]
• Yes, they have a A319 plane in possession. Source: [12]
• Yes they have started taking bookings on their website. Try to buy it on their website

2605:59C8:4FE:F900:49DA:E762:4F72:CA69 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Draftify since it's likely TOOSOON. I agree on sources right now, the best source seems to be the CNN article above. But it has several hundred words attributed either to a founder or the company itself, and a lot of the other coverage is about competitors, predecessors, and the broad industry, so I don't think it can qualify for CORPDEPTH. —siroχo 01:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: This should be a relatively easy call, it appears by all signs to be an active and operational international airline serving multiple countries. I believe the CNN and SMH pieces combine to be sufficient evidence SIRS is met and the vote is decidable on that basis alone. However in addition out of curiosity I went to the IATA database to see if they’re registered with an international call sign, and they are (it is B4) and I went to the airline website went to book a flight for November and was given a price and itinerary and flight number and prompted to enter passenger information and a credit card to complete the booking. Sure looks like an actual airline. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Anon IP. Just FYI, SIRS explicitly doesn't allow for sources to be combined. Also, no, it is neither active nor operational as an airline. Yes, they're registered but they haven't flown yet. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  SIRS actually requires sources to be combined in order to meet the criteria of having multiple sources rather than just one. Which was the point of that comment. The amount of employees required to get to the point of having those registrations, gates reserved at multiple major airports and so on requires active operations by any definitions of those two words. 157.130.50.206 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hello again Anon IP. Did you even read SIRS? The very first line says Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. In other words, the opposite of your take on SIRS. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Each of them, separately and independently of each other, meet SIRS. They’re both significant sources of coverage and independent.

  The fact that there are more than one of them each of which, alone, meet the criteria creates notability.

  That’s because having one source that meets SIRS is not enough and as such to meet SIRS, generally, you need to combine them into the analysis to satisfy the requirement of multiple sources.

  My wording could have been better but it’s not really that complicated to follow. Since everyone is having trouble here’s a recap.

  1. CNN meets SIRS

  2. SMH meets SIRS

  3. The combination of 1 and 2 satisfies notability and the SIRS insistence on multiple sources not just one.

  Got it? Also you never know who’s a dumbass anon and who’s just an editor who just forgot to log in before commenting and now has to stay anon to avoid leaking personal information. 98.116.200.240 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep as it is the flag carrier airline of Maldives [13]. It is a discriminatory behavior to apply US-coverage standards on a small country like Maldives, where media standards are different, and also considering the fact that multiple countries' publications have already covered it in-depth enough. 159.196.171.101 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Draftify (or delete). I'm inclined to agree with HighKing's analysis here on the CNN article. Limited to the 250 words of the independent content, I fail to see how it addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail to the point where we could extract content usable in an article, and the same said for the SCMP article. The SMH article lacks such content entirely. Outside the sources already analysed, the best I could find were from AVGeekery AirGuide and The Economist but they were worse than the SMH article so did not make it in to the best three. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Temporary redirect to List of airlines of the Maldives or draftify as WP:ATD and to preserve history until the airline begins operations. Once that happens we can restore the content. S5A-0043^Talk 08:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
• Drafify, per WP:TOOSOON Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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.