Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindanao Express

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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Express

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years (Slashme), hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I guess I've become a bit less of a deletionist than I was back then. It's true that it doesn't seem to be covered in depth in any sources that I can find with a cursory Google Books search, so nominally it seems to fail the GNG, but is mentioned in a good few books and reports, so it was a real airline, running flights on more than one route, and there is no doubt about that. I would recommend merging if I could find a suitable merge target. --Slashme (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am seeing a lot of searches about this transport. Even became a courier service. This only needs citations. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please help me identify a source which will make it pass the General notability guideline, namely a reliable source, independent of the subject, where it received significant coverage? --Slashme (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm a bit occupied and all I can do for the meantime is to skim AfD for the Philippines. Using Google, I do find a lot of information and pictures so it does exist [1] and I am from the Philippines and also do know this company exists so using WP:COMMON it is imperative that this article be kept yet maintenance tags must be placed to invite interested editors to improve it by adding citations. Obviously not deletion. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems as if there is a courier company called Mindanao Express, and a Google Images search finds lots of photos of a bus in "Mindanao Express" livery, operated by San Agustin, but from what I can find, the airline of that name has ceased operations. I don't really think that there is a common-sense reason to ignore WP:COMPANY. This guideline is completely applicable, and it basically echoes the GNG: there must be in-depth coverage of the company in reliable, independent secondary sources. Surely an airline of note should leave some footprints more than a brief mention in a few news reports. At the moment, the article doesn't have a single reference. --Slashme (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon my short research. It seems Mindanao Express is a company which was once plying the route to southern regions of the Philippines. Manila Standard newspaper captured it 1997. It was a company. but since the larger Philippine Airlines and Cebu Pacific Air has already flights direct to it established route (General Santos, Davao, Zamboanga, Tawi-Tawi, Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, and Indonesia) it then started its downfall trying to live out on its last breath through courier services and buses which were also sold out (or in partnership) to San Agustin. It does exist and it is notable for being the transport/courier service at the end of the 20th century for the Philippines. It is still WP:CORP provided more sources and citations can be given. Manila Standard is one. I still believe is is notable as part of Philippine transportation is concerned and just needs maintenance tags to call editors to improve it. Still works for me in using WP:COMMON as it did exist and notable for once plying those routes. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, searching the internet, I found one source by the Manila Standard published twice (therefore only counting as a single reliable sources) on 26 December 1997, and once again on 28 December 1997. A brief, not significant coverage, mention of the defunct airlines was included in this article, also by the Manila Standard in 2014. Without more significant coverage reliable sources, I cannot support a keep opinion, as the subject appears not to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve article using references from the Wall Street Journal, USAid, and PIDS.--RioHondo (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete uncited and appears not notable, happy to reconsider if extra cites can be found. Transasia07 (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Not seeing a consensus yet due to the Weak deletes Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources show that it existed, but mere existence is not enough for Wikipedia. YSSYguy (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, please take a good look at the sources I posted. An article without enough citations now doesn't mean it won't have or that it is not notable anymore. The USAID source claims that it was "the first commuter airline in Mindanao." That in itself already suggests notability. This news source from 1999 claims that it was also the "first airline which provided direct flights between major Mindanao destinations." This article just needs improvement and addition of RS's such as those and 1 2 3. --RioHondo (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a good look at those sources, and all they do is demonstrate the company's existence. You can have fifty citations of that calibre and the result would still be the same - it existed and went about its business for a while. That is not enough. YSSYguy (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually leaning towards keep right now. At least we now have a full-length newspaper article that discusses the airline in depth, saying which aircraft they were using, and we also have sources which explain how they became a bus operator. The fact that they were the first airline on those routes is an aspect of notability as well, so even though the topic might not pass a strict application of the notability guidelines, it passes the most important part, namely verifiability. We know for a fact what the answers are to the main who/what/when/where/why questions. I'd say that if User:RioHondo and User:Philippine Adventurer can update the article with this new information, it's worth keeping. --Slashme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 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.