Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Brasd'or


 * 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. the two sources provided are trivial mentions and noone else has put forward any sources that are not assertions Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Air Brasd'or

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No indication of notability. Disputed prod. a reference has been added to a warship that the airline is supposed to be named after. Google provides very little noq (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: from the scarce GHits, it would appear that Air Bras d´or is currently a going concern but a non-notable small airline. I could find even less about the historical airline of the same name the page describes.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Air Bras d´or ceased operations, before the Internet age, in 1987 - so you will not find much information online. The verifiable sources will be found in newspapers and magazines from 25 years ago. Notability is not temporary. Inniverse (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of things ceased to exist before the Internet - but there is a lot about them on the Internet. Do you have any verifiable sources or are you just supposing they exist? I see nothing in the article that indicates notability even without sources. noq (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mark as a stub. This is an article about a historical organization. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a hoax per Time Table and of interest to airline historians per Air Times page. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Who claimed it was a hoax? How does it meet the requirements of WP:ORG or WP:GNG? - that is the reason it is here. How does the page you listed show anything other than it existed? What is 'historical' about it? noq (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Article was mistitled; its name was "Air Bras d'or" (with a space). The article was moved to the correct spelling but this AfD (and the search links at the top) still reflect the incorrect spelling. I'd try to fix the AfD's title but I'm worried I'd screw something up with all the transclusions and templates that go with AfDs. If you search "Air Bras d'or", you find a little more. Also, this article needs re-writing; it was clearly written by someone not fluent in English (probably French Canadian). It's likely that a search of French Canadian media may turn up more. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem noted: I started to fix the article up and noticed that as originally written, it talked about Quebecair and implied a Quebec market presence. Yet the list of destinations I found showed no Qubebec destinations. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... there could be a connection to some other editors; see:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 5
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Floribert Piña
 * or maybe not. Having said that, even if there is a connection, these may still be good-faith efforts to contribute that have been misinterpreted.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I admit to being partial to keeping an article about a defunct airline that lasted as long as this one did.  Found two published references to the company:  and    PK  T (alk)  19:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable charter/freight airline. Article claims fleet size of only six aircraft. Unsalvageable. 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd like to see it kept, but no sources shown get it past the depth of coverage argument of WP:ORG (Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization). There is currently no comment/analysis/other that means a decent article could be created. This is proabably a result of its age, but there are probably thousands of firms now closed that don't have an article on wp. Bigger digger (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.