Air Partner: As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on the quality and volume of their sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to the company's own self-published content about itself, on its own website and/or in press releases, and shows virtually no evidence of reliable source coverage at all: the only citation that goes to a real media outlet is tangential verification that a terminal at Gatwick originally opened in 1936, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this specific airline as it didn't exist until 1961.  Note, for the record, that this article was raised as a WP:WAX argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter -- but, of course, the fact that this article is badly sourced doesn't mean that other article has to be kept, it means this article needs to be deleted . Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk ) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom . Bearcat ( talk ) 12:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments: I don't yet have a firm opinion on what to do with this article and I have not yet searched for refs but for now I have 2 observations: This company was listed on the London Stock Exchange . Experience shows that most companies end up with enough coverage to be found notable. Air Partner was acquired by Wheels Up ; it may make sense to merge this article into the Wheels Up article -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Notability: Air Partner could meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, as it is a publicly-traded company however with poor significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.  As was mentioned above, it was listed on the London Stock Exchange, which typically indicates a level of prominence.  LusikSnusik ( talk ) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There is some coverage about the company in the British newspapers found on Newspapers.com ( see here ) and probably more so in the British Newspaper Archive .  There is also some coverage found online, such as this Forbes article from 2022.  As of now, I would be leaning to weak keep.  Alvaldi ( talk ) 10:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Alvaldi, there seems to be enough coverage in old newspaper articles to support notability.  However, if not, then merge into Wheels Up per A. B. at the very least.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep or Merge into Wheels Up as per ATD.  Usually if a company is quoted on one of the main stock exchanges, there will be analyst reports available but in this case I'm unable to locate any analyst reports that provide any significant or in-depth information about the company - which is unusual but not unlikely.  There are some older archived newspaper articles but most either comment on earnings or contain insufficient in-depth information or fail ORGIND.  There were a couple which were borderline (where the journalist provided some independent opinion) and for that reason plus the assumption that there may be analyst reports out there in print, I'm leaning towards a weak keep.  HighKing ++ 20:07, 12 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep