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.
I would've let this article pass by if it wasn't that there's not much aside from the current information and because it was never successful, this would be best mentioned elsewhere but this is an orphan; my most fruitful searches were
this,
this,
this,
this and
this. Pinging author
Ardfern for comment.
SwisterTwistertalk19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am tired of articles for minor proposals which come to nothing.Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and therefore notability is established. -
Shiftchange (
talk)
08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete "Back in the day" there existed the notion that airlines are intrinsically notable, and Ardfern created dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about airlines. Since then, via multiple AfDs, a consensus has emerged that airlines must satisfy
WP:CORP as other companies must, and this doesn't.
YSSYguy (
talk)
09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There's probably a case to keep this as a monument to what appears to have been a seriously bad business idea (leasing two 747s to fly backpackers around - what could possibly go wrong?), but WP:CORP isn't met
Nick-D (
talk)
08:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I've just added a bit more on this company from Googling it. The online sourcing is on certainly on thin side, but as there are likely to be more resources available through newspaper databases and the like given the eccentricity/foolhardiness of the business idea I'm switching to very weak keep@
SwisterTwister:@
Shiftchange:@
YSSYguy:@
GeorgeGriffiths:, what do you think?
Nick-D (
talk)
11:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I've been able to add quite a bit more after looking in the
Factiva database, and think that WP:CORP is now met as the coverage was sustained and reasonably detailed over the life of the firm and it's received a bit of subsequent coverage, so I'm changing again to outright KeepNick-D (
talk)
11:38, 26 August 2015 (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.
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.
I would've let this article pass by if it wasn't that there's not much aside from the current information and because it was never successful, this would be best mentioned elsewhere but this is an orphan; my most fruitful searches were
this,
this,
this,
this and
this. Pinging author
Ardfern for comment.
SwisterTwistertalk19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am tired of articles for minor proposals which come to nothing.Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and therefore notability is established. -
Shiftchange (
talk)
08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete "Back in the day" there existed the notion that airlines are intrinsically notable, and Ardfern created dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about airlines. Since then, via multiple AfDs, a consensus has emerged that airlines must satisfy
WP:CORP as other companies must, and this doesn't.
YSSYguy (
talk)
09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There's probably a case to keep this as a monument to what appears to have been a seriously bad business idea (leasing two 747s to fly backpackers around - what could possibly go wrong?), but WP:CORP isn't met
Nick-D (
talk)
08:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I've just added a bit more on this company from Googling it. The online sourcing is on certainly on thin side, but as there are likely to be more resources available through newspaper databases and the like given the eccentricity/foolhardiness of the business idea I'm switching to very weak keep@
SwisterTwister:@
Shiftchange:@
YSSYguy:@
GeorgeGriffiths:, what do you think?
Nick-D (
talk)
11:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I've been able to add quite a bit more after looking in the
Factiva database, and think that WP:CORP is now met as the coverage was sustained and reasonably detailed over the life of the firm and it's received a bit of subsequent coverage, so I'm changing again to outright KeepNick-D (
talk)
11:38, 26 August 2015 (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.