Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying Whales

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Whales

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable startup with PR news, wire and trivial mentions and with no relialbe independent non-trivial media coverage required by WP:NCORP. Per WP BEFORE only trivial mentions appear Taking off shortly (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. There are more than enough RS proving notability over at fr.wp to save the flying whales. Nominator has been warned on their UTP for failure to make even a perfunctory check for RS before making nominations. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCORP. Piscili (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Under WP:NCORP we are looking for significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:SIRS. There is nothing obvious about a company accessing startup funding to develop a product or service, where said product or service remains unattained. The flurry of coverage that such startups generate in the funding round are not sustained coverage and rarely meet CORPDEPTH. The five sources in the article are all about the funding round and proposed new service. The dirigibles capture the imagination, but it is hard to say these sources meet CORPDEPTH for the company itself. Yet I also note that sources like La Presse are very good news sources, and we have both European and North American sources. I think this meets CORPDEPTH.[1] The other references perhaps do not as they focus on the proposed service rather than the company itself, but they are quite effusive on that. The airship also gets mentioned in this book [2]. Again, that is the airship not the company. So in terms of what we have, I don't think we are quite there. But then searching elsewhere leads me to quite a lot of interest and many other articles. My feeling is that this is unusual, generating real interest and that it is almost certainly notable, even though technically we need at least one more article that talks specifically about the company. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: Usine Nouvelle, Le Monde, Les Echos, Le Figaro, Le Devoir, SudOuest, etc. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for the one in le Monde? but I think I'll go ahead and strike the "weak" even if we have not specifically identified the CORPDEPTH for the company yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. There are two, but this one talks about the factory in Gironde. I linked to SudOuest instead because that's a recent article (last month) in the regional paper of record. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had seen this one in le Monde,[3] but did not feel that met CORPDEPTH on the company, but I think the one you link does. There is also some depth to the SudOest article, which I agree is reliable and independent too. So yes, that looks clearer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (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.