579:
seem to have questionable notability. A nursing journal probably isn't reliable because it isn't really related to the industry. Just nurses that happen to fly in planes. So its not authoritative in relation to the subject. Other listed sources seem to be regional, like the North
Queensland Register. Regional news outlets aren't good sources from my understanding. With your articles, the first one wouldn't load. The second isn't about the company. There's only a quick mention of it and there isn't real details. The third link says "page not found." So that's a nope. The forth is about The Australian Nursing Federation and not the company. Which is only mentioned twice briefly in the first two sentences. A random death on a plane doesn't seem notable even if there is an article about it. It's borderline sensationalism anyone and doesn't meet neutrality because according to the article "the poor service may have contributed to the death", not clearly caused it. The downsizing articles don't seem important either. Especially not on their own. --
677:
of
Knowledge. Not just confirming your opinion about a topic or keep an article when its un-warranted because "I put work into it." So, its about making A determination of notability, not THE determination of notability that I want. If it is merged that doesn't mean your work isn't for nothing. As the citations would still be used. I can understand your frustration though. Its pretty frustrating to take the time to review the sources someone provides just to mongered as a sexist like Aoziwe did to me below. We just have different opinions and that's fine. Don't let it discourage you though. We are all on the same side here. Also, read my quote below from the notability guidelines on having sources and that meaning the topic automatically warrants its own article. Hint, it does't and I don't think the sources do in this case. Again though, that's just my opinion. Your free to disagree. --
359:. Pearl Aviation is a subsidiary of the Paspaley company, previously held contracts in the Northern Territory and New South Wales to operate air ambulance services (known as Royal Flying Doctor Service in NSW), and still holds a contract with Airservices Australia as part of a joint venture to survey their aircraft navigation systems across Australia. There appears to have been some coverage of Pearl back in and around 2010 when the NT Government put the air ambulance services out to tender and Pearl lost the contract because of its ageing aircraft and concerns with the company. See articles more generally here by way of example:
763:
a company not a profession. As it is though, that's not the case. Your free to disagree, but I did take the time to read through your and
Bookscales sources when I could have been doing other things to make an informed opinion. Discounting it as sexist when I was extremely clear about why I made the conclusion that the article should be merged for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with gender, I didn't even mention it, is pretty disgusting. It's also actually sexist IMO to automatically equate nursing with gender. Let alone to use the sexism card if it comes up when sex had literally nothing to do with the topic. --
523:- it seems the company that originally ran Pearl Aviation split into two - one took the passenger services (and became Skywest, now Virgin Regional); the other took the other services (e.g. RDFS, navigation system checking services, etc.) and is what is now known as "Pearl Aviation". Having compared the Virgin article and the Pearl one, there seems very little overlap. A bit of a tidy up of the first few sentences in the history section should adequately do the trick. I wouldn't support merging as it would confuse the Virgin article given it is now the subset of a very different company!
612:
if the source is about the subject. Both those things are pretty obvious. As far as the nursing journal goes, it doesn't matter if they carry out medical aviation services, it matters if they discuss the company in a substantial way and in the article you cited they didn't. Sorry, but
Knowledge articles aren't bibliographies of every document that might have mentioned a subject in passing. So, I don't really care about nursing journal articles (or any other source) that I can't access, read, or use to add content to an article. --
435:
430:
436:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q-field0&q-type0=phrase&q-term0=%22Skywest+Aviation%22&q-field1&q-type1=all&q-term1&q-field2=creator%3A&q-type2=all&q-term2&q-field3=subject%3A&q-type3=all&q-term3&q-year1-date=1964&q-year2-date=1987&q=%22+Skywest+Aviation+%22+date%3A%5B1964+TO+1987%5D
431:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q-field0&q-type0=phrase&q-term0=%22Pearl+Aviation%22&q-field1&q-type1=all&q-term1&q-field2=creator%3A&q-type2=all&q-term2&q-field3=subject%3A&q-type3=all&q-term3&q-year1-date=1964&q-year2-date=2020&q=%22+Pearl+Aviation+%22+date%3A%5B1964+TO+2020%5D
403:. I haven't done any searching of its potential history relating to Skywest either - which might have even more coverage. At worst, if the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, the content (which is sourced - though could be improved by the above) should be merged to the main Paspaley article as part of their operations.
762:
in the nurses journal. It didn't have anything to do with the profession, let alone the sex of the people in it. If the article was about the topic of medical aviation fine. I would care less since that would mean there would be enough specific details about the actual topic of the article. Which is
676:
Your making it all about you and missing an extremely important point here because of it. One of the options in an AfD is to merge an article if the topic has enough coverage make it a notable subject for
Knowledge but not enough to warrant its own article. Ultimately its about improving the quality
611:
I'm not sure what exactly your referencing, but I'll assume its not being able to access the articles in the .gov list. if you can't find or access a source its worthless because you can't add the relevant content from it to the article. You can't just cite a source devoid of qouting it either. Even
578:
Well, With Aoziwe's nla.gov source it seems you need a library account or something somewhere to view any of the articles it lists. So I can't really speak to those. Except that most of the sources seem to be from either
Australasian Business Intelligence or Australian Nursing Journal. Both of which
505:
redirects to Virgin
Australia Regional Airlines. I cannot make head nor tail of these two articles and how they are related or not. There needs to be a thorough review and partial rewrite of both perhaps to properly sort out the relationship or not. Perhaps we should be looking at a merge of both
630:
sources available - which is adequate for an AfD. Seriously, I really feel like giving up participating in these sometimes, you do all the research to demonstrate notability and yet come across editors who just can't be bothered and nothing is ever good enough.
596:
is the third source. I don't agree with your assessment that just because you can't find a source it is worthless. And to suggest a
Nursing Journal is not a reliable source about a company that carries out medical aviation services is ridiculous.
542:
With the
Paspaley Company article. Which doesn't even seem to mention it, because it doesn't seem to have notability on its own otherwise. Since all the citations seem to be to the Paspaley companies site or a government one.
712:
I suggest is either blatant sexist bias or gender neutral profession snobbery. Sometimes one needs to actually physically go to a library and read stuff. The sources are sustained and broad. There is quite sufficient
213:
758:
into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." So its not just purely about the raw numbers of sources. I said multiple times my main issue was with the lack of enough coverage
708:
There are demonstrably sources available, and in reliable publications. Just because they are not on line does not mean that they are of no value. Discounting publications with
166:
207:
889:
756:
If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged
344:
325:
305:
285:
412:
686:
640:
621:
606:
588:
573:
552:
515:
360:
730:
532:
451:
273:
800:
786:
772:
469:
877:
494:
392:
313:
293:
400:
333:
93:
866:
836:
265:
173:
113:
98:
420:
The size of an organistion does not by itself indicate for or against notability. It seems to have more than three aircraft now.
593:
754:
in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.
376:
364:
845:
815:
228:
195:
68:
486:
139:
134:
396:
143:
372:
107:
126:
86:
17:
189:
388:
721:. The histories of the two subjects need a rewrite to properly explain such, but AfD is not about CLEANUP.
380:
148:
498:
185:
103:
160:
235:
906:
564:- what about all the other sources I and Aoziwe have found? Have you read the other comments so far?
40:
82:
791:
Yeah totally. Making baseless claims of sexism, not so much. So hopefully you don't do it again. --
885:
73:
355:- Pearl Aviation may only have 3 aircraft now, but it has some coverage over its history, and
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
902:
901:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
156:
36:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
248:. According to article, company operates a whopping three aircraft and has eight employees.
201:
321:
301:
281:
361:
report on donations to the
Liberal Party by Paspaley at the time the contract was tendered
8:
636:
602:
569:
528:
463:, posting links to show that there are "lots of sources" is no indication of notability.
408:
261:
253:
152:
130:
881:
796:
768:
682:
617:
584:
548:
502:
368:
337:
782:
747:
726:
714:
511:
447:
221:
460:
356:
317:
297:
277:
63:
384:
857:
827:
671:
632:
598:
565:
524:
490:
404:
257:
249:
122:
74:
792:
764:
718:
678:
613:
580:
559:
544:
464:
245:
365:
mention of the company in a history of air ambulance services in Australia
876:
Clearly notable, and it was was formed and started operations in 1964 as
778:
741:
722:
507:
443:
389:
coroner report article about a death caused by a delay on a Pearl flight
53:
897:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
848:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
818:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
442:
There may be quite sufficient to demonstrate notability.
377:
ABC article on the cancellation of the contract with Pearl
489:
which seems to be sharing some of the same history as
220:
854:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
824:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
274:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
909:). No further edits should be made to this page.
393:on its Airservices Australia inspection services
332:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
292:Note: This discussion has been included in the
272:Note: This discussion has been included in the
369:radio report on safety concerns raised by Pearl
314:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
294:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
334:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
234:
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
777:Yes, we are free to agree to disagree.
710:Just nurses that happen to fly in planes
14:
626:But it's a demonstration that there
385:a mention here on the tender process
397:article in 2016 about it downsizing
23:
487:Virgin Australia Regional Airlines
427:There are also these to consider:
24:
921:
752:We require "significant coverage"
99:Introduction to deletion process
256:) 03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
13:
1:
890:20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
867:19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
501:in the first sentence of the
69:05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
837:21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
801:03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
787:23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
773:21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
731:12:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
687:21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
641:11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
622:11:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
607:09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
589:11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
574:10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
553:07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
533:11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
516:10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
499:Skywest Airlines (Australia)
470:20:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
452:10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
413:09:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
345:07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
326:04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
306:04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
286:04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
266:03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7:
357:notability is not temporary
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
10:
926:
750:which you yourself cited "
899:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
493:. Indeed the link for
503:Pearl Aviation#History
401:another one from 2016
381:on the tender process
373:more on runway safety
87:Articles for deletion
244:No indication meets
869:
865:
839:
835:
760:about the company
347:
328:
308:
288:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
917:
878:Skywest Aviation
864:
862:
855:
853:
851:
849:
834:
832:
825:
823:
821:
819:
745:
675:
563:
495:Skywest Aviation
342:
331:
311:
291:
271:
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
61:
34:
925:
924:
920:
919:
918:
916:
915:
914:
913:
907:deletion review
870:
858:
856:
844:
842:
840:
828:
826:
814:
812:
739:
669:
557:
338:
181:
172:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
64:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
923:
912:
911:
893:
892:
852:
841:
822:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
734:
733:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
537:
536:
535:
491:Pearl Aviation
485:There is also
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
439:
438:
433:
422:
421:
415:
349:
348:
329:
309:
289:
242:
241:
178:
123:Pearl Aviation
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
75:Pearl Aviation
72:
46:
45:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
922:
910:
908:
904:
900:
895:
894:
891:
887:
883:
882:Ambrosiawater
879:
875:
872:
871:
868:
863:
861:
850:
847:
838:
833:
831:
820:
817:
802:
798:
794:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
761:
757:
753:
749:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
707:
704:
703:
688:
684:
680:
673:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
642:
638:
634:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
561:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
471:
468:
467:
462:
458:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
437:
434:
432:
429:
428:
426:
425:
424:
423:
419:
416:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
350:
346:
343:
341:
335:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
71:
70:
67:
62:
60:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
898:
896:
873:
859:
843:
829:
813:
759:
755:
751:
709:
705:
627:
539:
520:
482:
465:
456:
417:
352:
340:CAPTAIN RAJU
339:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
57:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
874:Speedy keep
717:to support
506:articles?
208:free images
860:Sandstein
830:Sandstein
318:Lightburst
298:Lightburst
278:Lightburst
903:talk page
748:WP:NEXIST
715:WP:NEXIST
672:Bookscale
633:Bookscale
599:Bookscale
566:Bookscale
525:Bookscale
405:Bookscale
258:Loksmythe
250:Loksmythe
37:talk page
905:or in a
846:Relisted
816:Relisted
793:Adamant1
765:Adamant1
679:Adamant1
614:Adamant1
581:Adamant1
560:Adamant1
545:Adamant1
483:Confused
466:HighKing
461:WP:GHITS
457:Response
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
521:Comment
459:As per
418:Comment
214:WP refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
779:Aoziwe
742:Aoziwe
723:Aoziwe
719:WP:GNG
508:Aoziwe
444:Aoziwe
246:WP:GNG
186:Google
144:delete
540:Merge
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
886:talk
797:talk
783:talk
769:talk
746:Per
727:talk
706:Keep
683:talk
637:talk
618:talk
603:talk
594:Here
585:talk
570:talk
549:talk
529:talk
512:talk
497:via
448:talk
409:talk
353:Keep
322:talk
302:talk
282:talk
262:talk
254:talk
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
56:brad
52:. –
50:keep
628:are
236:TWL
165:– (
888:)
880:.
799:)
785:)
771:)
729:)
685:)
639:)
620:)
605:)
587:)
572:)
551:)
543:--
531:)
514:)
450:)
411:)
399:,
395:,
391:,
387:,
383:,
379:,
375:,
371:,
367:,
363:,
336:.
324:)
316:.
304:)
296:.
284:)
276:.
264:)
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
65:🍁
884:(
795:(
781:(
767:(
744::
740:@
725:(
681:(
674::
670:@
635:(
616:(
601:(
583:(
568:(
562::
558:@
547:(
527:(
510:(
446:(
407:(
320:(
300:(
280:(
260:(
252:(
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
58:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.