Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Italica


 * 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   redirect to List of defunct airlines of Europe. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Air Italica

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG on its face, even assuming what it says is accurate (cited to unreliable source). An airline that existed for a few years that had one plane? Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. OSbornarfcontribs. 04:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to List of defunct airlines of Europe It's true that this will never be more than a stub but the basic facts can be verified and keeping at least a redirect makes most sense. Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Delete Not sourced reliably and dubious notability....William 01:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a reliable source and fails WP:GNG.Andrew Kurish (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of defunct airlines of Europe. Failing the GNG doesn't mean that we shouldnt cover it - we should - just that it shouldn't be a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2012 (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.