Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smintair

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smintair[edit]

No encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. This company (if it can be called one) failed to get off the ground so far, and as long as it is not an existing carrier, it does not belong. Physiognome (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - interestingly, there's plenty of media coverage. But it all refers to an airline that will exist in the future. In fact, it appears to have been a hoax or, at best, a puff of smoke from entrepreneur Alexander W. Schoppmann. For instance, smintair.de says the account for that domain has been suspended, and smintair.com resolves to meine-dfu.de-- I don't read German, but I suspect that's not a placeholder site for soon-to-be notable airline. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - A lot of people have heard of Smintair because of the headlines it made a couple of years ago. Even if the project has been put on hold, and even if it NEVER gets off the ground, it is still worthy of coverage in Wikipedia, if only because of the discussion in engendered. However, the article needs fleshing out and more references, such as these from the BBC, NY Times, International Herald Tribune ref 1, International Herald Tribune ref 2 CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, etc. Guys, these are very important publications and media sources, not blogs or company sites. Certainly wasn't a hoax either, and I dare say that when the economic climate improves, we'll see the airline back in the news. The current climate has hit the airline industry hard, as you know. But because of the huge coverage that the airline got in all the quality media, I would strongly advise against deletion. Tris2000 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references provided in this discussion. That the airline is grounded is not a reason for deletion. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:38, 23 February 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.