Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seair Seaplanes

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seair Seaplanes[edit]

Minor airline, no indication of ntoability that I can see. But I've learned the hard way that AFD is better for airlines than CSD< so I've declined the CSD and am starting up this AFD instead. TexasAndroid (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable allready csd once, should have been again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it has a scheduled service, it's notable. Charter airlines are another matter.DGG (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it fails WP:CORP to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regularly scheduled runs. See [1]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as much as it pains me to say... As a member of the Aviation Project I cry every time an aviation related page gets deleted, but according to WP:NTRAN "Commercial airlines can be notable if they have been discussed in multiple, reliable sources." I can't find a single news hit for Seair, and everything that Google is turning up is forum postings and Airliners.net photos. So sorry Canada, this one's got to go. Livitup (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, and I meant to say I don't see having scheduled service as a criteria for notability, even in the project guidelines or essays. I've heard that claim before, but I don't agree with it, and I can't find it documented anywhere. Please, feel free to prove me wrong, though. Livitup (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight google news hits, though I'm not trying to claim that they prove notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Does a reference from Wings magazine help? - [2]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd. I swear I did the same gnews search and found nothing. Reading the articles, they are trivial mentions at best. Wings just tells us that they exist, which has never really been questioned. Still a delete for me. Livitup (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (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.