Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Airlines

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Airlines[edit]

[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)

Originally prodded with rationale of one-sentence stub, after which it was slightly expanded, but still not enough to pass notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as the single source does not seem substantial as it is only a simple database listing. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The size of an article is not a reason to nominate it for deletion, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not something is notable. Aside from which scheduled airlines are considered universally notable by consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the established consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability which state that : Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is sufficient, there is no specific threshold that can be used to automatically determine if an airline is notable or not. And I am not seeing that it does meet WP:NCORP in any way. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE, and hence fails WP:GNG. Aviation safety is a database, not RS, and even if it were RS does not give signficant coverage to the subject, and even if it were thought to give significant coverage, more than one source is required. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The text has been evidently created by an airline enthusiast and their efforts are, at least by me, applauded. But Wikipedia is not a depository or all-inclusive, random information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate coverage. May be recreated if more coverage (e.g. from local sources) can be found. feminist (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (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.