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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Seaplane Service[edit]

Alaska Seaplane Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. PROD reasoning was that this is a local air taxi type service, like literally hundreds of others in Alaska, and no notability has been demonstrated. The only sources are a directory listing, a trivial mention in an article about aviation insurance, and something in German that also seems to only make trivial mention of this outfit. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a scheduled carrier. See this Google translation for the article from the newspaper in Germany which is all about a flight operated by Alaska Seaplane Service. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A scheduled airline in a remote part of the world with few carriers. Article needs more information, such as types flown and capacity. Would need a review if the company ceased trading in the future. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A scheduled carrier important enough for IATA to allocate a code, does need improving but not deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not want to pile-on here, but I do feel this is a keeper (although needs work). Juneau is not connected to the rest of North America via road/rail, thus relies on sea/air transportation. The notability guidelines for roads assert that major linkages between towns are notable. In the absence of roads to the capital I would argue that alternative transportation, which would normally not be notable, becomes inherently notable because they serve as de facto major connecting roads between isolated regions. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep. These small airlines with codes are the only way to get to many places in Alaska. Travel by road is impossible and by large aircraft is also impossible due to the length and condition of many runways, or the lack thereof. The IATA code here with those conditions is clearly notable. And yes Alaska has a lot of small airlines. I guess they might be the bus companies or trains of Alaska.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, we have bus companies,shuttle services, water taxis, land taxis, and trains in Alaska. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What none of you seem to realize is that every small town and village in Alaska has at least 2 or 3 small airlines operating out of it. A town like Homer has about 10 or 15, there's probably 20 or 30 in Juneau, and I wouldn't want to guess how many in Anchorage or Fairbanks. It's like giving an article to the guy who runs the local taxi or delivers your pizza, as is clearly indicated by the translation of the German article. The article indicates that their fleet consists of only 2 small seaplanes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's a scheduled carrier, and one that has been awarded Essential Air Service contracts no less. --Allstar86 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question It seems clear where this is going, but I'm curious as to why being scheduled makes it automatically notable. I'm not familiar with any such guideline or policy so, in the interest of not wasting everyone's time, I'd appreciate a link to whatever it is that says any scheduled transportation is inherently notable, as that seems to be the crux of the keep arguments. The argument that this is the main way to get to Juneau does not hold up in because both The Alaska Marine Highway has it's hub there, and Alaska Airlines, along with many, many other airlines service Juneau. It has a modern airport, although the approach in a large jet can be quite terrifying due to it being wedged in between the mountains. The only way anyone would call these guys to get to Juneau would be if they were already at some much more isolated place and needed to get backBeeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect it's because the distinction between a scheduled service and a charter company is an unambiguous and convenient threshold. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I checked out the Bureau of Transportation Statistics T100 segment data for Alaska for the first quarter of 2008. Alaska Seaplane Service carried 667 passengers in the first quarter of this year. That might make them appear small, but we have articles on other Alaska regionals such as Inland Aviation Services (214 passengers) and Taquan Air (257 passengers). On the other hand, other Alaska airlines for which we have articles are bigger, such as Wings of Alaska (3793 passengers), Bering Air (25232 passengers), Frontier Flying Service (41940 passengers), L.A.B. Flying Service (1952 pax), and Servant Air (2069 pax). Also, PenAir carried 58104 passengers and Alaska Airlines carried 827014 passengers. These figures are for flight segments either originating or terminating in Alaska. (Actually, it's been nearly five years since I've had to look at T100 data for my job, but I still know what it's used for.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a note on that note, I had PRODed Inland as well, but that has been removed and I was waiting to see how this plays out. My concern here is that if this stays, the other 300 or so micro-airlines in Alaska will all feel deserving of their own articles. I'm positive there are other air taxis that carry as many people in a month as Inland does in a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2008 (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.