Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Romania

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. I hate no consensus closings, but this is a prime example of where the community is split. After screwing up with a delete (darn buttons), now closing as no consensus. Dennis - 2¢ 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Romania[edit]

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

sub "brand" of airline company that only lasted from May to August 2014. Fails WP:CORP Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of news coverage about this company, esp. as it lasted for such a short amount of time. How long should a company exist before it's notable? May to September? April to November? Can you point me to the policy that states this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts WP:ORGDEPTH invalidates most of the refs used. There is only one article that seems to be in depth coverage. The length of time the company existed is not important, but it is why there are not many sources talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG; numerous independent and reliable sources. I disagree with @Gaijin42; at least the Diplomat and Romania Libera sources are in-depth - the ch-aviation ones could go either way. Certainly neither the Diplomat or Romania Libera are phone books, schedules, passing notions - they're not (based on) routine communiqués or announcement either. Ie. there is actual journalistic work in the sources ie. it's in-depth coverage. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A paragraph in Ten Airways would be sufficient. A newspaper article does not notability make!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it lasted such a short length of time, to me, suggests exactly why it should remain; not only is it well covered, but it seems notable due to only lasting such a short amount of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.181.58 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 18 October 2014 (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.