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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Askari Aviation (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)

Procedural nomination—on reflection, I've reversed my own speedy deletion of this page since although it looks like unsourced and poorly written spam to me, in light of the number of other editors who've edited this page and apparently not seen anything wrong with it there may be something I'm missing. Procedural nomination, so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the A7 entirely applies since none of it is significant followed by the fact it's simply a mere business listing. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "back in the day" when this article was created, airlines were regarded as intrinsically notable. Airlines are not intrinsically notable, and the company is not an airline as such anyway, it is an aircraft sales and flying training organization. Sixty-odd edits (excluding bots and the recent deletion-nomination-related activity) in almost eleven years is not very many, and not one has added anything in the way of a reliable source or demonstrated any sort of coverage in such sources, let alone significant coverage. The general notability guidelines have not been met. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely promotional stuff.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more it isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite the stubby state of the article, we are not being asked to assess the article, we are asked to assess the potential sources in Google Books and News. A look through both Books and News shows this is one of, if not the, major aviation services for K2. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the work you have put in, it appears that what you have added to the article is based only on passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GN. A few of the sources are unreliable and need to be removed. But even when gone, it meets GN--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In addition to the climbing books now referenced in the article, I found the following news sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and "Lindsay Griffin reports on triumph and tragedy on the first winter ascent of Gasherbrum I" in Mountain World (unable to provide link to the PDF). None of these are really in-depth, but there are enough to make it notable as the only company doing K2 rescue work. There is probably a lot more coverage in Urdu. MB 02:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say, none of these are really in-depth.

• The first source listed above has the following: "For civilian and humanitarian purposes, a fee needs to be deposited with Askari Aviation."
• The second consists of "Brigadier Nadeem Aslam, C.E.O. of Askari Aviation Services, an agency that is run by former military personnel and supported by the Pakistan Army Aviation"; and "pilots with the Pakistani Army Aviation worked with Huber and Lowe, and conveyed information to Askari Aviation to relay updates".
• The third consists of "the Punjab government hires the flying machine for official use from the federal government or Askari Aviation that owned helicopters".
• The fourth has "A military-linked firm which operates rescue helicopters in the area, Askari Aviation, said that due to extremely poor weather efforts to airlift Mr Confortola from the mountain had been suspended until tomorrow."
• The fifth consists of "Wir informierten sofort die Firma Askari Aviation, die Rettungshubschrauber betreibt", which translates as 'We immediately informed the company Askari Aviation, which operates rescue helicopters'.
• The PDF article from Mountain World consists only of "a weather window allowed Askari Aviation fly to 7,000m on the mountain, studying the line of ascent, and later the Normal Route".

These are all passing mentions; and saying "there is probably a lot more coverage in Urdu" is pure speculation.

NadirAli, how does the article's subject meet the GNG? None of what is in the article and none of the references presented bring the article to meet GNG. There are six sources, four of which are used to support a single sentence (in which there appears to have been a bit of synthesis applied) about the company performing mountain rescues. All four of those refs are mere passing mentions:

• "Brigadier M. BashirBaz, the head of Askari Aviation, chimed in"
• "He proved very capable of managing the difficulties of dealing with Askari Aviation"
• "Askari Aviation...operates rescue services" (from the 2008 Lonely Planet guide for Pakistan, which doubtless would also say where the places to eat and sleep are)
• "a spokesman of Pakistan's Askari Aviation said the emergency air service has been contacted" (from an article about a missing Spanish climber)

- perhaps that is why four references are deemed necessary to verify one sentence.

The other two sources are an article listing business owned by the Pakistani army (which literally consists only of mentioning the company name among dozens of other such names) and the company's own Facebook page.

In all, in the article and here there are eleven independent sources presented, seven of them demonstrating that the company does rescue work (as do hundreds of other helicopter operators around the world); none of them say that Askari is the only company doing rescue flights in that region. None of the eleven constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of other helicopter operators around the world certainly do rescue work, but I believe this is the only one that does it at the elevations of K2. This is an extreme environment and the circumstances of K2 add to the argument for notability. I realize none of them say it is the "only" rescue available (so I would not say that in the article without a RS). But it is certainly implied as the sources talk about having to pre-arrange a deposit with Askari or there will be no rescue if needed. MB 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although there are some tangential quotes from persons who purport to be employed by the subject company, nothing shows that the subject itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2017 (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.