- 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I-Fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability. Small charter airline with an unsourced claim to 3 aircraft. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was actually a disputed speedy deletion, not a disputed proposed deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot an airline, so much as an aircraft-owning company. If it only has three planes, surely it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC) :[reply]
- see later vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivially small charter airline company; the best the article can say about the company is that it is connected to two other non-notable companies. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The nominator is just wrong claiming that there is no reference that the airline operates any aircraft. So far, I found three (and at least one of these websites is included in most other airline fleet sections): [1] (which is given as a source in the article), [2], [3]. The aircraft are also operated under the airline's name and livery [4]. There is nothing wrong with the notability and significance of this airline, there are also independent sources (that is, I could find this one): [5]. There are plenty of airlines around here on Wikipedia that only operate three aircraft, sometimes even less (Air Italy Polska, just to name one). As I understand, there is consensus on the WP:AIRLINES project that an airline is notable once it posseses any aircraft and offers any flights.Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that you are an expert with regard to airline articles, and I respect that. However, I can't find where the discussion about airline notability provides automatic notability for all airlines. On the contrary, the consensus there seems to be that usual notability criteria should apply. According to this, "IMO it would be very hard for a company operating a small number of aircraft on charters to be notable," and the criterion to be used is the "number of non-trivial reliable sources". --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, you touched a weak point of the airline project. There are many enthusiasts there, who just aren't able to agree on a notability standard (some include even proposed airlines or airlines that were around for less than a year) - that's what you've just cited. As a guideline, airline editors usually include fleet tables into airline articles (or will start an articles once an airline shows of at an online fleet directory like the ones I gave as sources above). Another reason are airport destination lists: If an airline operates a certain flight (consensus is that even charter flights may be included), it is added to a list at the airport's article, usually (in oder to get rid of red links) followed by the creation of an airline article. As this is clearly the case with I-Fly, it is considered "includeable".
All I meant to say is that compared to other airline articles (for example those on this list or Baltia Air Lines - whose deletion is also discussed-, as well as all those proposed airlines), I-Fly is not exceptionally un-notable. Therefore, deletion of this article would be a test case resulting in the deletion of hundreds of airline articles. As a guideline to how low inclusion criteria for airlines are, look for example at this deletion discussion. Also note that the Airlines Project is informed, so we will surely get further opinions on the general question when an airline is to considered notable. (edit was expanded several times) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, you touched a weak point of the airline project. There are many enthusiasts there, who just aren't able to agree on a notability standard (some include even proposed airlines or airlines that were around for less than a year) - that's what you've just cited. As a guideline, airline editors usually include fleet tables into airline articles (or will start an articles once an airline shows of at an online fleet directory like the ones I gave as sources above). Another reason are airport destination lists: If an airline operates a certain flight (consensus is that even charter flights may be included), it is added to a list at the airport's article, usually (in oder to get rid of red links) followed by the creation of an airline article. As this is clearly the case with I-Fly, it is considered "includeable".
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Generally I would agree that airlines are per se notable as long as they have or are currently flying and serving passengers in a commercial and (semi)-scheduled manner, i.e. are not private-charter-only airlines. On sources: simple search on Googl shows a number of pertinent links 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Just because WP:ITEXISTS does not make it notable. There is nothing that makes me think this is notable and encyclopedic. - Pmedema (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Keep - I don’t normally find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a valid argument for inclustion, but in this case a precedent seems to have been set in discussions and in the acceptance of airline information. At least this one has references. - Pmedema (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No English language sources, and I don't know how to locate Russian langauge sources.I can't evaluate the Russian langauge sources which were added, so I will withdraw my vote. Good luck on saving the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please note: I have just expanded the article, with some more sources I could find (as well as an image). I quite guess that the company now is quite reasonably referenced with information from reliable third-partiy sources, which should be enough to pass WP:CORP. As stated before, I cannot see why I-Fly should be not notable comapared to all those other Russian airlines. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Airline is notable and sources exist. Yes they are in Russian (except for the fleet list) but the name of the company makes searching and finding sources for the company inherently hard to find. Ravendrop (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (after expansion) Comment -- No view now-- It still seems of limited notability
- 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.