Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tramon Air

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. ✗plicit 14:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tramon Air

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Ardfern with the following rationale "Not an insignificant airline in South African terms. We should be building up such articles not destroying them". I appreciate that sentiment, but the article still is missing a source that would identify this company as "not insignificant". As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, and South Africa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly seems like spam, and there are interesting pieces here like the ICAO and Callsign which are ideally preserved in a knowledge repo. Not to mention there is generally interest in who owned / operated different plane types. 2A01:CB00:56:B100:C8AC:CD4F:504F:B926 (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING addresses your arguments, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably information best suited to a "List of" type article HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a company so NCORP applies. There are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited references. Fails to meet GNG and NCORP Park3r (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2022 (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.