Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindanao Express (2nd nomination)

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. Multiple sources exist per Proquest search results. Consensus is that it meets notability and probably WP:CORPDEPTH. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Express

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

Previous AfD could not find a consensus, hopefully we can now, especially as it has been tagged for notability for over 8 years now. It existed, but I couldn't find the sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've see this article before via CAT:NN and was unable to find sufficient sources either. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Previous discussion does show multiple secondary source coverage, particularly those found by User:RioHondo, including coverage by the Wall Street Journal. Just because the company is now defunct doesn't nullify its notability.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KeepAirline plainly existed. I searched WSJ (thanks to OBSIDIAN's comment) and I just sourced 1996 founding to a long, detailed, reported article in the Wall Street Journal. A commercial carrier is certainly notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ran it through a news archive search at Proquest; lots of articles as this "rural feeder airline" expands, gets new routes, has trouble getting govt. permission for direct flights to Australia, makes a good profit, etc. ... Article can certainly be expanded and sourced. What I did not spot wan an article about it's closing. Although there was this (Senator pushes for perks to lure

Constantino;Senator pushes for perks to lure Constantino, Nelson V. BusinessWorld (Nov 14, 2001): 1. (Nov 14, 2001): 1. with this: "Mindanao Express, has temporarily suspended operations in Mindanao," It was, , unfortunately, in that article's abstract on the search list. Full text of this article not available. No other articles in that search postdate 2001.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH per the analysis of available sources provided above by E.M.Gregory (e.g. Proquest search results). While it would be nice for the sources to be available without a Proquest account, I AGF about the analysis of them provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Are airlines considered notable for simply having existed? The WSJ coverage above looks like WP:NEWS to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (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.