Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverfly (airline)

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. Sandstein 09:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfly (airline)[edit]

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

Silverfly is a planned airline concept, a company which so far has not acquired any aircraft. Therefore, it should be deleted, also because the following Wikipedia policies are violated: First, the whole article consists of product announcements. It is purely speculative per WP:CRYSTAL. Secondly, it has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (all media attention Silverfly got so far has been due to self-published intentions concerning planned routes and aircraft). Per WP:CORP, this is needed, though. Thirdly, a google search reveals that the most important contributor, User:Mahdi Prijatna, seems to be the business advisor of Silverfly, so it's a breech of WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Baltia Air Lines comes to mind here, an investment scam which was deleted for similar reasons. --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Permanently ground~~ - Until there is significant reliable coverage for it, then I can't see how it is notable. It's just an airline that failed to take-off (or did, only once.) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Upon reviewing one of the sources in the article (which, IIRC, wasn't there the last time I checked; last time I checked it, the sources implied it only had one flight), it confirms that there was a scheduled service, if only for a few days. I believe that any airline, as long as it had scheduled flights, is notable, if only just. However, there is an awful lack of reliable sources, even in Malaysian media. Although there doesn't appear to be an established consensus that any scheduled airline is notable, I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but the lack of reliable sources, for me, makes this airline's article hit turbulence. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This airline has had scheduled passenger flight service with two airplanes in 2010, and as per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a general consensus and precedent at AfD that airlines that have operated schedued service are notable; it is the act of scheduled operation that establishes that notability. Notability is not temporary; provided that notability can be verified through reliable sources, which it appears is the case here, the article is suitable for keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The case it, so far there is no proof that Silverfly has operated any scheduled flights. From the few sources available, it more looks like Berjaya Air had wet-leased one of its aircraft, so that all that happened was a short-term marketing/branding event. And then again, there is no general consensus that notability in an airline was established by scheduled flight operations. There just is no special notability guideline for airlines, but WP:CORP should be followed.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS can be formed through normal editing pracitice. Normal editing practice and precedent at AfD is that scheduled airlines are notable fo the fact that they are scheduled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a general consensus to keep airlines that have offered scheduled flights, and as The Bushranger (talk · contribs) stated, notability and its general guideline is not temporary. There are already some reliable sources provided in the article that verify some statements. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:15, 23 February 2013 (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.