Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyMe (Maldivian Airline)

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. Big Dom 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlyMe (Maldivian Airline)

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

Non-notable new company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Probably should have been Speedy deleted, but the CSD was removed for the invalid reasons. ttonyb (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not much of an article or an airline but I don't think that it deserves to be deleted. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You have not specified why, using Wikipedia criteria, this should be kept. Just saying it does not deserve to be deleted does not make it notable. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. There just doesn't seem to be any information in independent reliable sources. Even the official website gives nothing more than an address and phone number. The details of the single plane they plan to operate are on several websites, but I don't know the reliability of these sites. In any case this would be barely enough information for inclusion on a list article. I'm no expert, but it does give the impression of something that will actually happen, so no prejudice against recreation when there is verifiable things to say. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The airline isn't an imaginary one. It has just been established as clearly indicated by the sources which I believe are reliable. I believe that the article has enough scope for expansion especially when the airline begins operating scheduled flights. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of existence, but an issue of notability. There are 2 references in the article and they are basically a copy of one another. Please read notability and WP:CRYSTAL. ttonyb (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The brand had been launched very recently and airline will start operation within the next few months. Refer the website www.skyliner-aviation.de for some additional reference and search Maamigili, Maldives on Google earth to find the airline's base. This is a domestic airline which is scheduled to start soon.The points in the text could be verified by two online news publishers in the country for this Domestic Airline. This is worth keeping and can be further developed. There are no false information or copyright infringements in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam FW (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Adam FW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is not an issue of false information or copyright infringement, but an issue of notability. There are 2 references in the article and they are basically a copy of one another. The www.skyliner-aviation.de reference is nothing more that a listing that does not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Please read notability and WP:CRYSTAL. ttonyb (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator did not state a reason for deletion in the nomination. WP:CRYSTAL states, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable..." References in the article show notability; and in accordance with policy, research in the Maldives can be expected to produce more. WP:RS is content policy, see WP:N#NNC. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually I did indicate the article is non-notable. The references do not show notability, there is only one news report, the other is a copy of that one and the other "references" are only listings. So, there is only on secondary reference that meets reliable sources requirements. This is hardly enough to support notability. Research may show more, but one cannot support an article's notability on speculation. ttonyb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public-transport airlines are public sector institutions which means that governments give such airlines attention, the public makes themselves aware of their services, and are generally notable. Government officials fly in public-transport airplanes, so there is a strong bias to give public-transport airlines regulatory attention. In this case, even though the airline has not flown, I have found a Maldives certification for the first airplane (see article). There is also international attention, including the German website mentioned above, and a [web page] dedicated to the new airline (both now in the article). Given that this airline has not flown a passenger and doesn't have an IATA code, I would prefer that this article be boldly moved to the incubator until it has both, and sidestep AfDs like this one and possible claims of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:ONEEVENT. However given spectacles like United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics where we can check every day now on the latest medal totals for the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics, I'm not sure that Wikipedians as a group would want this particular article to be incubated. So I think we just have to accept that the article meets notability criteria as it is, including the WP:CRYSTAL criteria for anticipated events. Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – None of your reasons support the Wikipedia definition of notbaility. As indicated above the references do not show notability, there is only one news report, the other is a copy of that one and the other "references" are only listings. So, there is only on secondary reference that meets reliable sources requirements. Articles such as United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics have no bearing on this AfD or the notbaility of this article. Unless you can show how this article meets notbaility criteria, there is no reason to accept it is notable. ttonyb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is clearly notable. Even though there is one source, the airline isn't a hoax! It has been established but hasn't started flying yet. So it's worth keeping the article. Dear nom, if you want the article to be deleted, why are you cleaning it up? Nomination of the article is just a waste of time of other editors. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In spite of your insistence, a single reference does not establish notability. In addition, your reference to the company not being a hoax implies you do not understand one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not based on truth, but rather verifiability. If one cannot support an article with adequate verifiable, secondary references, then the article does not meet notability requirements. As far as your comment about "waste of time", I do not feel improving the quality of Wikipedia content is a "waste of time". If you do, then I suggest you take a Wikibreak. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (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.