Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Flyers (flight school)

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. Ultimately, nobody contests deletion. Can be recreated if better sources are found. Sandstein 07:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

American Flyers (flight school)

American Flyers (flight school) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Failing WP:GNG. Likely promotional article created by WP:SPA. Though some work has been done to clean up, the article maintains a promotional slant. Only claim for notability is apparently being the oldest flight school in the US, however this has only one source in a local paper and I have not been able to find other independent sources. Other articles indicate Boeing School of Aeronautics and the Curtiss Flying School being older. Therefore, run of the mill company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not !voting on this - yet, at least - but (pulling up my rocking chair and cane) back in the day of the mid 1990s I read just about every aviation magazine I could get my hands on, and ads for American Flyers were everywhere. My gut feeling is that there's probably enough out there in offline sources, at least, to document N, but somebody will have to dig. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: There are certainly tons of ads and advertorials in aviation magazines found via google books, but I remain sceptical about independent editorial. It may indeed exist in physical books somewhere. I did find some coverage, such as those 3 ads [1], [2], [3]. There's also what I'd call an advertorial, such as [4], [5] or [6]. Also, routine corporate coverage such as [7]. Clearly, many of the facts are covered, however I have yet to find independent secondary coverage and depth of editorial coverage _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• I too suspect that there may be more content out there. A few articles like this is all that is required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I think this particular article does not establish notability as it fails both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The wording of the article indicates strongly that it is a press-release and it would fall into the category of routine coverage of corporate events. While such article proves the existence of the firm (which is not in question), it does not establish notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't claim it establishes notability. I claim that a few more articles with a similar amount of content would give it notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• I spent about three hours looking online last night and found sources from Flying Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, Plan & Pilot, Nova Scotia University, the City of Santa Monica (smgov.net), the Orlando Sentinel, FAPA, General Aviation News, CCHeadliner, and the Wichita Business Journal. However, the scope of the research so far seems to be concentrated heavily around a few recent current events. I'm going to do a search today for print sources and see what I can come up with. I think this would be a great "teeth-cutting" first project for me. Help and guidance along the way would be very appreciated. Dragon-360 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment --before I make up my mind. I speak as a subject matter expert. It is probably factual to say "the longest surviving commercial flight school in the United States with the most expansive geographic reach. The article needs a rewrite to include History and an up-to-date description of its operations model. The Part 141 assertion is an important one. We might a well capture this story; general aviation is an industry past its mature phase. It's not a huge company, but within its sphere, it is notable. It was probably more notable in 1978, the peak year of GA. Rhadow (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 10 December 2017 (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.