Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transindo

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transindo[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. There is one source in the article on this defunct private jet operator at the moment, a database entry, and the source thus fails to contribute towards WP:SIRS. I've conducted a broader online search about this company and I am unable to find sources that contribute towards passing WP:SIRS. As such, I propose that this article be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of NCORP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Indonesia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH, nothing at all in any kind of sources in Google search except few listings. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this, like Citra Air, I will try my best to update this. Thank you CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per analysis above. gidonb (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, so deletion is appropriate here. If the article subject had demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY in the form of sufficient WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS, there would be a stronger case for keeping. However, as I have pointed out in detail, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP aren’t met here. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2023 (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.