Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaglexpress

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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglexpress[edit]

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

New air charter company. No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Speedy removed with the claim it met the notability criteria at WP:WikiProject Airlines/Notability however, this page just refers to WP:ORG. only independent source is a news article about it starting. Google searches not finding any significant coverage. noq (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You cannot argue that the lack of coverage does not make it notable. notability isnt created by press coverage. This is a new airline and should have an article like any other new airline on wikipedia. For example Fastjet hasn't started operations and has its own article, the only difference is Eaglexpress has a solid date when operations begin. The lack of sources should not be grounds for deleting an article, it should be improved, this is what i am doing currently. Other airlines similar to this and equally as notable is Jett8 Airlines. --JetBlast (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:verifiability requires WP:reliable sources to establish notability. Lack of coverage shows no verifiability and so no notability. Existence is not enough and neither is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. noq (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some more credible references although i have not finished yet. --JetBlast (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The article is based on other such new stubs started by some of the most pro-policy editors of wikiproject airlines, they too created the stubs with whatever little information was available and when the airlines had not even recieved any coverage, why is this such an issue all of a sudden now? are any other editors that I might be unpopular with coaxing you to do this as I dont see them commenting on it despite posting at wikiproject airlines talk page hours ago. Let the article remain and grow as more info becomes available with time to be added here, along with "coverage" references, thats, how it goes dosent it? deleting it makes no sense, are you hoping for someone to recreate the article later once the airline is more prominent? quite irrational. inspector (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith; there is no cabal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are assuming that as it exists it will become notable - that is not how Wikipedia works - Notability needs to be established first rather that using Wikipedia to try to make it notable. noq (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector, if you would like you could "userfy" Eagle Express by putting it in your sandbox or a user subpage, which would give you opportunity to work on it some more and re-create the article if it's more notable. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The airline is borderline on notability (couldn't find anything about it when I did a quick search of Flightglobal, ATW or Google News) but has plenty of sources, so I don't think it should be deleted. —Comp dude¹²³ 05:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources read like press releases and the Routesonline and the star online articles are practically word for word. noq (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the statements are based on future events, much like balling. Apart from that, the article relies strongly on sources related to the subject.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- An airline that so far only has one aircraft can hardly be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because it has one aircraft shouldn't mean it shouldn't have an article. All these airlines have to start somewhere. --JetBlast (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an airline that has been allocated an ICAO code and operates a Boeing 747 must be of some note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why must it be? 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Long-standing WP:CONSENSUS is that all scheduled airlines, regardless of size, clear the notabilty bar. As there is an ICAO code assigned, this is considered an actual airline instead of some two-bit charter operator, and a 747 is not exactly a puddle-jumper. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus then it would be useful if WP:WikiProject Airlines/Notability actually said that rather than referring to WP:ORG. noq (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As mentioned, this appears to - barely - clear the notability bar, but I'd feel more comfortable if we could confim any scheduled service. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I consider all airlines to be notable, especially if they have an ICAO code. Not all airlines have a 747 anyway, and although that in itself does not establish notability, that should be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: There might be a weak keep consensus here, but it would be weak. An extra week of discussion would be helpful, especially as there has been little discussion of the sources available. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (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.