Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistral Aviation

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. Not all the links in Bushranger's vote are all that significant (for instance the EU blacklist includes Mistral because all the Congolese airlines are on that list), but the video link (about a Mistral DC-9) does provide some reasonably significant coverage of the airline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistral Aviation

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

After having read through the deletion policies, I am convinced that Mistral Aviation fails the WP:CORP notability guideline. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in secondary sources. The two references given in the article are the only ones that can be found. [1] states that the airline was very short-lived: It was founded in 2009, and by October of that year it had its Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) revoked, due to documentation issues. This means, that Mistral Aviation itself had problems proving that it's an airline. The other "source" is a tiny snippet from a Lonely Planet travel guide, which merely states that there were three weekly flights (I have no idea how reliable this is) - again only proving the mere existence of Mistral Aviation. But per WP:EXIST, this does not establish notability. Therefore, the Mistral Aviation article should be deleted. FoxyOrange (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:40, 19 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability is not intrinsic in an airline and has not been established for this particular one. YSSYguy (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Operating on a scheduled service is the standard used for notability for airlines. The airline may now be defunct, but Notability is not temporary. Possible additional sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, please note that there is no notability guideline for airlines. Instead, WP:CORP must be followed. Again, those four sorces you gave cannot be regarded as significant coverage. Also, the video you gave as a source is actually about a DC-9 in FIFA colors, which was operated by Global Aviation (see: [6]). I have no idea what the link to Mistral Aviation is, but it strenghtens the feling that Mistral was not a real airline, rather a failed start-up. --FoxyOrange (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:CONSENSUS, through long-standing editing and past AfD results, that all scheduled airlines are notable. I couldn't see the video, only the title, hence my including it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:43, 1 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bushranger's correct description of our usual practices for verified scheduled airlines, even if the coverage is fairly scanty. Completeness is a virtue in an encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 1 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.