Jump to content

Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/International association of aviation personnel schools

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Chenzw  Talk  16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

International association of aviation personnel schools[change]

International association of aviation personnel schools (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Racepacket has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This is non-notable. I could not locate independent reliable sources covering this trade association of 35 flight schools. It does not have coverage on other Wikipedias, such as English Wikipedia. It is possible that the IP that created it may have a COI. QD of the article was declined. Racepacket (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

  • Keep. This is a very notable association. The only association worldwide for airline pilot schools, non profit, supported by Airbus, EASA, CAU...and including the major schools such has Oxford Aviation Academy, Swiss, SAS... No problem at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.239.175.7 (talk • contribs)
    • For my personal knowledge, what is "a COI"? Many thanks in advance. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Conflict of interest. See WP:COI. πr2 21:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - The problem is not whether IAAPS is notable, but rather what is important is whether the article describes the notability of the association. For example, has the IAAPS done anything to achieve its goals? What benefits have been brought about from having Airbus supporting it? Not to mention that I am not even sure if Airbus supports it - Airbus Training only joined the organization, that's all. When I see "support" I usually think of financial or logistical support. The article needs to be expanded to justify the claim the this association is notable. Chenzw  Talk  05:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I have taken into account your remarks. Thank you. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I still do not see independent news coverage of the organization. The fact that Airbus allows a group to meet at their building does not make it notable. There are many fine organizations in the world that are not notable. Some large companies allow boy scout troops to meet in their building. That does not transfer the notability of the company to the boy scout troop. Many industries form trade associations or lobbying coalitions -- the notability of the individual members does not automatically transfer to the umbrella group. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I just had one more independent source. I think the question is more the quality of the article (and the references) instead of the notability. Being the most important non profit association around the world for pilot schools, representing the major flight schools (and major airlines flight schools such as Swiss, SAS...) to the civil aviation authorities....prove that there is no question of notability. But of course, the article needs to be developed, having more independent sources...I totally agree. But this is a question of quality, not notability. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteKeep - I'm not 100% sure on this one. On the one hand it doesn't really establish notability, however I can see that according to the article airlines such as Lufthansa and Airbus are 'members' which made me take a second guess. I'll still say delete but not 100% sure... Normandy 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep --Horeki (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Any particular reason why? The more info you give helps to make a decision. Normandy 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for keeping this article include:
A. Airlines from Germany (Lufthansa), the Netherlands (KLM) and Scandanavia (Scandinavian Airlines System) are founding members of this organization organizers of this association -- see here.
B. IAAPS participates in the rulemaking process of the European Aviation Safety Agency -- see here.
The subject is notable and the text is supported by reliable sources which are cited.--Horeki (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to Horeki, we need reliable secondary sources. None have been provided. There are thousands of lobbying groups and trade associations, but the notability of their founding members are not automatically transferable to these umbrella groups. Also, there is a difference between the airline and its flight academy. Finally, I would hope that 78.239.175.7 would openly declare what relationship, if any, the IP author has with the organization. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Racepacket, if another secondary source cite is wanted, here is one: "Télex: École des pilotes de ligne à l’IAAPS," Aujourdui Le Maroc, No. 2306, 12 November 2010
In response to the proposal to delete this article, it has been re-written and re-organized. Inline citations have been expanded. IAAPA is as notable as its comparable European counterparts, such as the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK -- see European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Rulemaking Group Composition, 31 October 2008; International Association of Aviation Personnel Schools (IAAPS), Projects and achievements; retrieved 2012-1-4.

Continuing complaints about the original author of the article are unhelpful.

This thread does not appear to acknowledge the work that went into making this article better. --Horeki (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reprinting a one paragraph press release is not significant coverage in a secondary source. Sorry. Racepacket (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. (I already voted when I nominated the article for deletion.) This IP-created article is taking up a lot of editors' valuable time. It is a shame that the energy is not directed toward writing a suitable article on pilot training or the regulation of pilots. En Wikipedia, which has many more volunteers than Simple, has not found it worthwhile to create an article on this particular group. How are we serving our readers by spending time trying to save an article that had such a flawed start? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Goblin 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!
Encouraging new users should not be a factor in making the decision on notability/deletion. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, RP, I take your point; but we are talking past each other. To me, it seems that your sentence re-packages an off-topic issue. Please join me in stepping back slightly. Let's re-think this together.
  • FACT #1: An article was created by 78.239.175.7 whose brief history of changes here suggests that he or she is a "new user."
  • FACT #2: There is a lack of acknowledgment or comment addressing what 78.239.175.7 wrote about how to improve the article -- see here and here and here.
What is a relevant factor? Please bear with me as I try to make a small point with consequences that are not small.

In my opinion, the diffs of 78.239.175.7 were each relevant in our discussion about notability and/or deletion. Yes, the new user status is not what this thread is about; however, the sentences which were ignored are now highlighted. Looking back, it would have been better if I had added timely support for what 78.239.175.7 wrote. Do you begin to see our my mistake?

We can do better, yes? --Horeki (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. I see RP's point, but the wide membership of this organisation argues for its being notable. Also, the lack of an equivalent article in enWP has made the editor's job more difficult, yet he's produced quite a reasonable article. I think it would be unnecessarily destructive to delete it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - The part about the IAAPS being part of the rulemaking group of the EASA is sufficient to convince me of the association's notability. Chenzw  Talk  10:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think my job is useful to evaluate the admissibility of an article and I taught Wikipedia is anonymous, but for me that's no problem at all. As Racepacket requested [1], I answered here [2]. 78.239.175.7 (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - This discussion has been interesting but not for the best of reasons. The facts are hard to place. There are references but they are not the most solid of things to base a discussion on. It's notable but it isn't notable. It's a grey area overall. Even as a deletionist, I find it hard to push for deletion here as there are valid points each way. As space is not an issue, siding with safe is a better call. This has been shown since its first creation to not be blatantly not notable. The creator has done well to supply the best information he can find to prove to many that it is of note. I can't fully agree that it is notable, but I can't find argument that it is not and hence concede the Keep. The personal attacks here are not the issue and need to be ignored no matter how bad the etiquette of them. This isn't about about a new account, a CoI issue (why it was created can be as CoI as the user wants, its the information that matters in the end - CoI is a warning that we may be dealing with Pov issues not that something needs to go and this is a single CoI, not every/majority of keep editor(s) having the issue). This isn't about an editor attacking the creator, It is never valid to keep just to reject the attack or to ignore points made by the attacker (no matter how hard it is to not be colored by the bad taste in those comments). Its about "is it proven that it is not notable" (even more than is it proven that it *is* notable). Given the info, I can not say this is not notable - that is all that matters. --Creol(talk) 06:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 21:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.nynox.solutions/index.php?title=Project:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2012/International_association_of_aviation_personnel_schools&oldid=131649"