Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Helicopter

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. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that the company meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Helicopter

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

Article says the company is notable for having a helipad. I don't think this really makes them notable. No other indications of importance or significance. — Timneu22 · talk 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They operate the *only* public-use helipad in Philadelphia, which is notable for its uniqueness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgross (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ewgross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have clarified the article to stress why they are notable, as they operate the only public use heliport in Philadelphia.Ewgross (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ewgross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per nomination. Having the only public heliport in Philadelphia is not really a claim of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having the only public-use heliport in Philadelphia is the very definition of technical significance. Please bear in mind that although the information contained in this article may not be relevant to you in particular, there are Wikipedians who use private helicopter transport. Information pertaining to the location and operator of a public heliport in a major city such as Philadelphia is particularly relevant to such people. Ewgross (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ewgross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This article is about a company that seems unnotable. Does a helipad make this repair company notable? — Timneu22 · talk 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete + Speedy, needs serious expansion and significant supporting evidence to establish notability. If the notability of the heliport can be proven, I suggest that the article is moved to the name of the heliport rather than the name of the operating company, but in current state, it needs to go completely. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed that article needs expansion. However, the article is still founded upon something which is relevant to a particular group of people. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built [[1]] Ewgross (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ewgross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , but every editor has to start somewhere - where else than creating a small article with a small, yet still substantiated relevance? Just because the method of transport is not common, such as Septa and their bus service, does not make it irrelevant.
  - Comment: Ewgross, you say "don't demolish the house while it's still being built", but can I just point out that whilst you seem very quick to reply to comments on this page, you haven't made any further attempt to improve the article. Not much building going on! As it stands, this article does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, so if you want it kept, I suggest you spend less time arguing the toss here and concentrate your energies on the article instead. Expand it, establish notability, add references etc and people will be more willing to support it.
  - Indeed. Ewgross, we all understand your position here. I suggest you do two things, if you truly want this article to remain: 1) Fix the article.
Merge - the suggestion about turning this page into an article about the heliport, instead of the operating company, sounds like a good idea. I am adding references and information on the heliport at Pier 36. I can certainly understand why the heliport is more notable than the company behind it. Ewgross (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ewgross, you only get one opinion. I have moved this. — Timneu22 · talk 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Stop replying to everyone's comment here. It's just tiring. — Timneu22 · talk 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Does a helipad make this repair company notable? " This article is about a company with the singular, only public-use helipad in a major city, which is not just "a helipad" as you state. Ewgross (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two words for you Ewgross - PROVE IT! If this helipad is not "just" a helipad, and is significant as you claim, then find us the proof from reliable third party sources and I will help you sort out the article as best I can. Either way, the company definitely does not appear to meet Wikipedias notability guidelines, so it will certainly have to be moved to a new title, perhaps Penn's Landing Pier 36 Heliport Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero refs and only claim to notability above is the fact that they operate a helipad. The helipad is not the subject of the article, I note. I doubt it would pass muster either. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this a memorable first article experience, especially Timneu22, whose snide and condescending remarks about the defense of my first stab at an article being "tiring" will help me to become a better person. Wikipedia:BITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgross (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This will probably sound like I'm biting as well, but hey ho - For someone who is supposedly new to Wikipedia, you seem to have familiarised yourself very quickly with out behavioural guidelines (Wikipedia:BITE) and guidance essays (Wikipedia:Don't Demolish the house). Instead of wasting your time and our time, how about quitting with the sniping and familiarise yourself with something useful, like Wikipedia:Notability, or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I did was nominate an article for AfD, according to our policies. If you consider that "biting", well I don't care. Your willingness to comment on everyone else's vote without making changes to the article? That's not helpful to the community. Congrats on citing policy. No one is impressed. — Timneu22 · talk 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the article now stands, Penn's Landing Pier 36 Heliport is the legitimate title. It looks like it may even be worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree subject to further supporting evidence being found from a reliable source. Have had a look myself, but can't find much, so I think it's up to User:Ewgross to find something more. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that some organization has "the only X in location Y" is nowhere to be found in the guidelines for notability]. Edison (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's some coverage here and this article has some interesting information that could be used to expand our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Phil Bridger's sources have not been assessed yet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article fails WP:COMPANY (corporate notability) but could be re-written to meet WP:Airports as per information in http://www.airnav.com/airport/P72 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Phil Bridger's sources may just be enough for WP:CORP here, although it depends what constitutes significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs serious improvement, with more reliable sources and a clean-up - however I think totally deleting the article is going too far. I see no reason why the article cannot exist - it just needs improvement. IainUK talk 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources mentioned in this discussion do not satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria.--Pink Bull 19:55, 18 August 2010 (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.