Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Cambodia


 * 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. THis AfD is too confusing to relist. Suggest nominator or others do more research and improve article or renominate as appropriate. JERRY talk contribs 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Air Cambodia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Placed prod, but removed and "Air Forbodia" comment placed. This airline was an airline on paper only, in the planning process. The parent company Phuket Air is defunct, and hence is no longer on any planning board. Sources which discuss the subject in-depth can't be found, hence this airline fails notability guidelines. Note, the only reference is from 2001, yet this airline was not proposed until 2004 Russavia (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Russavia (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions.   -- Russavia (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is an airline that never got off the ground owned by an airline that is apparently inactive (though the Wikipedia article describes Air Phuket in the past tense, it makes no citations of when or how it became inactive--the website is under construction, however). I would say that if this airline ever flies a passenger, then it is worthy of an article. If the story of the failure of "Air Forbodia" were particularly notable and were included, then include it. Otherwise, there is no reason for Air Cambodia to have an article.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It flew at least one passenger in 1996, and enough passengers to get its prices into a travel guide. I wouldn't believe Russavia's claim that sources couldn't be found, if I were you.  It's almost certain that he hasn't even done the preliminary step of putting "air cambodia" into a search engine.  Otherwise he'd have found the incident where Teng Bun Ma shot a 737's tyre off because Air Cambodia had lost his luggage.  As I said when removing the PROD, the nominator hasn't actually looked for these sources, that he claims not to have found, in the first place.  Take what is stated in the nomination with a spoonful of salt. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The airline you are referring to above is Royal Air Cambodge. This airline was planned from 2004, so how could it have possibly flown an aircraft in 1996? --Russavia (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reconsider Above Delete Looks like the article probably needs some expanding, or more research needs to go into it. Is the Air Cambodia that flew in 1996 the same as the one mentioned in the article? The Phnom Penh airport mentions several different airlines that service them--none of them are called "Air Cambodia", so at current, no "Air Cambodia" services the capital city.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, this airline was mooted in 2004. The airline from 1996 was Royal Air Cambodge, which of course many so-called media professionals would obviously call Air Cambodia; its the same as major TV/print broadcasters (having seen it with my own eyes and heard with own ears) referring to China Airlines as Air China, and Air China as China Airlines. This proposed start-up was going to be called Royal Air Cambodia instead of reincarnating the Royal Air Cambodge name, due to the later's website being taken over by a porn operator. That small factoid still doesn't make it notable of course ;) --Russavia (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (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.