Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviajet

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 delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aviajet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet the corporate notability criteria (WP:CORP) as there appears to be virtually no coverage in secondary sources, let alone any of significance. What few mentions there are seem to be either user-generated content or unrelated uses of the same name. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my own WP:BEFORE, I found and added a number of refs that (at least) support the existing text. And have allowed for some expansion. As noted in the nom, except in somewhat niche airline/charter/aircraft news sources (like the "Airways: A Global Review of Commercial Flight" and "Aviation News" sources added/linked), most of the coverage I have found falls into the "passing mention" category. The only "mainstream news" source I could find was the coverage of the 2007 aborted landing. And, while used to support the text, it doesn't really support a notability claim. I'll take another look later and see if I find any non-trivial/non-primary/non-UGC ("plane spotters") type content (and, depending on what is found, will update my !vote).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: Thanks very much for your efforts. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I agree with Shellwood above - there's the occasional passing mention or PR but I can't locate anything that contains in-depth information *on the company* and "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It seems somewhat odd to me that a "virtual airline" can exist for 25 years (and can apparently fly hundreds of thousands of passengers in that period and do so using any number of commercial aircraft painted in their own livery), while also seemingly not attracting enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. (And especially odd when a software startup, comprising little more than a loose concept and two people in a garage, can garner excessive amounts of newsprint.) However, while it may seem bizarre and oxymoronic, the fact is that, while my own WP:BEFORE has returned enough sources to support the article text, I'm not seeing enough coverage to support a notability claim. And therefore, if reluctantly, I'm oblidged to err on the side of a "delete" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2022 (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.