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. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langley Flying School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article about a flying school was created by the self-professed owner of the school, as described on the article talk page. The article consists predominately of text cut-and-pasted from the school's own website, released under a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 unported license. The article fails to meet many Wikipedia policies, including notability, COI, NPOV and Spam. As documented on the article talk page, attempts to establish subject notability were not successful as few reliable third party references could be located. Attempts to edit the article to bring it into compliance have resulted in multiple reverts by the article's creator with edit summaries such as "key text was removed in the previous edit with without rationale--motivation and interest of the editor questioned", "Massive cuts to this article without communication of meanful rationale warrants continued concern for motivation and interests. Information was factual and of interest to the aviation community" and "You are exceeding your authority--provide rationale on talk page for your action so constructive dialogue can occur. Motivation and interests are in question". The resulting edit war ended with page protection, discussion and a consensus from editors, other than the page creator, to nominate the article for deletion as a non-notable subject and commercial self-promotion. Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google comes up dry. Nothing to source notability, nor much of the material. It reads like an ad, not a reliably sourced article for a notable subject. Crum375 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect – To Langley Regional Airport. The flying school is an integral part of the airport operations and services. As such, it could be easily added into the airport piece. This would serve to round out the current airport article, as it does need expansion, and would be a welcome addition. JAAG^Talk 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect - Langley Regional Airport which provides context and perspective. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Delete; Please review WP:N.[reply]

• Comment Mr. Hunt, you begin this debate with extracts from comments I made when I perceived YSSYguy's cuts on November 26th to this article as vandalism. I was concerned as approximately 30% of the article vanished this day without explanatory notes on the discussion page. Granted, your selected quotes reflect my inexperience in Wikiways, but it was a genuine effort to confront what I perceived to be YSSYguy's senseless destruction of the text. Clearly, after his work of November 26th, he was prepared to let the article stand—Mr. Hunt, this fact that the article was acceptable after the November edit/cuts is notably absent from your opening remarks (and we would be interested in your reflection on this). (NOTE TO READER: the YSSYguy cut of November was to remove a linked list of airlines that graduates of the school in question now fly as pilots, and included linked aircraft types flow by these men and women).

Mr. Hunt, you are clearly experienced in aviation as the list of your contributions indicates, but I do notice a certain focus in your expertise: you have a history of writing prolifically about the “stuff” of aviation—aircraft types, primarily a historic list. You have some editing experience in military flight operations, but I see from your published list of articles very little about civil flight operations. The application of "WP:ORG" to any description of human endeavour in aviation (other then historic record, military activitiy or the making of machines) is complex and significant since the far greater majority of aviation activitiy is civil and therefore commercial in nature. Let me ask you: are all civil aviation operations to be removed from the unlimited space that is wikipedia simply because the application of “WP:ORG” is complicated.

I was curious how you managed to apply “WP:ORG” in your own work in Wikipedia, and I’ll be honest in saying that you could be perceived as having a conflict of interest in each of the following acticles which you have contributed (even though you clearly are not an owner, employee, relative, or friend). I have sampled some of your work, and in particular, I would suggest, with respect (but in the spirit of debate), that each of the following articles that you have writen could be nomiated for deletion under “WP:ORG”. Many, perhaps, could be construed as “SPAM”. Symphony Aircraft Industries, Universal Helicopters, Ram Mounts, Wings Over Miami. I am not suggesting hypocracy, but I am curioius in how you navigated the rather tricky waters of commercial endeavour in these cases. --Dparry (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. I;m not opposed to listing the school in the airport article, if the airport's own website lists it. However, any claims such as "the flying school is an integral part of the airport operations and services" would need to be cited from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The school is listed and has a link on the Airport’s official web-site, as shown here [1]. Hope this helps. JAAG^Talk 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That list of flying schools includes several on the other side of the country! It hardly demonstrates that this flying school is a big deal to the airport, though a sentence on its existence in the airport's article seems appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was created to promote the flight school and, not surprisingly, the available references aren't sufficient to meet WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many other flight training schools in Canada have more of a claim to prominence yet there are no articles on them. FWiW. I would support a Merge/redirect to Langley Regional Airport. Bzuk (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, though adding one sentence to the airport article sounds like a good idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but de-spam as required. I am prejudice in these discussions as the creator of this school (LFS). I hope to return to advance my points in these discussions a few times during the upcoming days. At this point, I simply wish to begin by urging readers to familiarize themselves with this institution through its website. LFS publishes its own training manuals and we have therefore made it our mission to share as much of our training material as possible through our website. Before you pass judgement, then, please take a few minutes to familiarize yourselves with LFS--if anything, so that you are fully informed. The Ready Room The Classroom Commercial Pilot Flight Operations Private Pilot Attitudes and Movements --Dparry (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dparry (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• None of what you say affects notability. Please read WP:ORG carefully. A Wikipedia article needs to have its subject mentioned by verifiable and reliable independent publications in "non-trivial" coverage for inclusion. Please demonstrate such sources and coverage if you believe an article is warranted. Crum375 (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but bear in mind that the article creator/flying school owner has for some reason accused me of vindictiveness. At the end of the day, every one of us could write an article about the company we work for, but that doesn't mean that the article should exist. At the moment the only article that links to the flying school article is the airport article, where it is included as an external link; I agree with Buckshot06 - there could be mention of the flying school (and the local helicopter training organisation) in the airport article. YSSYguy (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With all due respect, YSSYguy, you objectively evaluated this article following your November 16 edit and it met your standards of acceptability and worth at that time. It was only after I challenged your lack of explanation that you sought removal.--Dparry (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As pointed out several times, I left edit summaries, which is something you failed to do for the majority of the edits you made. The article did not "meet my standards", go back and re-read the discussion on the article talk page. The poor quality of your linking to the airlines and aircraft types is what drew my attention to the article in the first place (for example King Fisher) and those links were in a paragraph that just did not have a place in any article; your inability to accept that is possibly one reason we are here now. The last edit you made before I saw the article (which was not on 16 November, but that is by-the-by) was one of the few that did have a summary, you stated, "Clean up completed and ready for review"; well, it is being reviewed. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article massively fails WP:ORG and has clear and obvious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, with all due respect, Nick Thorne, your prolific and impressive contribution to aviation in Wikipedia appears to be limited to military history, and I'm not convinced your comment in regard to the more tricky application of WP:ORG to commercial aviation operations, especially in the field of civil aviation training, is meaningful.--Dparry (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DParry, this comment is what is known in the logic racket as an "Ad hominem". As such, your comments run perilously close to violating WP:NPA. If you continue along this vein you run the risk of being sanctioned by a passing admin, so take care. I suggest you deal with the substance of the comments made by myself and others rather than making snide remarks about our areas of expertise, about which you can know absolutely nothing. Unless you begin to take these comments seriously it is highly likely that your article will be deleted, as the concerns about it have not been addressed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick Thorne: sorry about that, I was simply attempting to interpret the constructive nature of your input here. I don't think you are attempting Dog Pile tactics. I did, however, want to point out to readers your comparative lack experience in the editing civil/commercial flight operations. No personal affront intended, respectfully. --Dparry (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dparry (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the subject at hand. Whatever the amount of "experience" (as defined by you) I may have with editing general aviation articles is entirely beside the point. We are not discussing my edit history, but whether or not we should delete the article about your flying school. Please refrain from making further comments about other editors in this discussion. You have not addressed the issues raised with this article, especially those of notability, but also thos of NPOV, COI and SPAM. These requirements are not unique to general aviation articles, all Wikipedia articles are required to pass them. The article under discussion plain and simply fails these requirements and so should be deleted. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D, Wiki editors do tend to take on projects of their own interest, not necessarily indicative of their background or experiences, but Ahunt and I do have a background in general and civil aviation in the "real" world. FWiW, so does our Aussie friend, Yguy! However, as mentioned earlier, that is not the issue at hand. Addressing the concerns that were posed, including your earlier comment that you were willing to "de-spam" is the first step. Have you any secondary or tertiary sources that recount the story of Langley Flying School? A newspaper or periodical article that tells the story of one of the graduates, for example, illustrates the significance of the operation. Your company's listing in a guide such as the Wings magazine trade listings of Western Canada aviation companies may be of use. Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Bzuk Here is the result of my search for secondary sources: Flying High with Langley Flying School, Knowledge Network (West Coast Adventures), "You only have one life, Canadian Aviator Magazine", Langley Living: All You Really Need to Know About Community Living in Langley, B.C., A Profile of the Education & Training Sector in the Township of Langley, Township of Langley, P. 12, Canadian pilot killed in Jordanian air show, CBC News, Air taxi tragedy points to industry flaws, The Star, Empty Field Myopia, Skybrary, Pilot Training Organized Cooking Lake Aviation Academy, Canada’s Higher Education and Career guide, Langley's friendly skies, P.7, Garrett Chidley remembered for his smile and passion for adventure --Dparry (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order: Magazine style TV program; Blog; Directory listing; Directory listing; Incidental mention in a news item; Incidental mention in a news item; an attribution of an image by David Parry of Langley Flying School; an acknowledgement of David Parry of langley Flying School for contribution to an FAQ; Directory listing; 1 paragraph in a 37 page local business guide; Incidental mention in a news item

You need to understand that these "sources" to not meet WP:RS and none of them (nor indeed all of them together) establish notability. All they say is that there is a such a flying school, nothing is said that shows that it is notable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This extensive search done by User:Dparry and accurately assessed by User:Nick Thorne duplicates the same work and conclusions that I came to, as documented on Talk:Langley Flying School#Article issues. The West Coast Adventures article and the TSB accident report (Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A03P0068 Spiral Dive - Collision with Terrain - Langley Flight School - Piper PA-28-140 C-GNUD - Langley Airport, British Columbia, 6 NM NE - 25 March 2003) I found (and User:Dparry missed in his list above) are the only two sources that come close to WP:N. The fact that even the school's owner could only locate business directory listings and incidental mentions in articles about other subjects, like the death of former students, does tend to lend a good deal of weight to the assertion that this school does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability nothing in the article that jumps out to say we are just not a flying school but have some major achievements and recognition. Most of the article still needs to be pruned for non-notable information and once that is done it just says we are a normal flying school in Langley doing a good job like all the other thousands of flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CORP, is a self-admitted WP:COI, and strikes me as borderline spammy (the statement "I simply wish to begin by urging readers to familiarize themselves with this institution through its website" seems like a round-about way of saying "advertising"). Cocytus [»talk«] 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP reads like spam clearly a COI issue lack WP:notability. I could go on, but I think the above comments cover more of the issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Despite much advice freely given that may have allowed the article to stay it appears that no significant attempt has been made to address the concerns. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Final Comment. I just wanted to take the opportunity thank everyone for allowing me to participate in this process, and I'm grateful for the time and energy of those who have read and commented. I am a tremendous fan of an open and free Wikipedia and I am appreciative of the fact that it has only evolved to its current level of success because of the commitment of individual editors such as yourselves. I must apologize for the my periodic critical comments related to personal styles and editing histories--these were fielded in the spirit of rigorous debate only. Best regards --Dparry (talk) 02:30, 7 January 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.