Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmosphere Airlines


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Atmosphere Airlines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is coverage about the subject, though this seems more like an elaborate hoax. May even be speedied, though there may be a debate whether the claim for significance is credible. I think it is not. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment well the company exists (See ref) but it seems to only exist on paper so far so the table of destinations is just speculation. Mccapra (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that, too. Some media has picked this up as well - plus some press releases that agreements with vendors for systems have been signed. Though as PR, this would not count to notability. Mere existence of a company is not enough. Anyone can register a company in the UK. I could file, say, "British International Jetways" (just a fantasy name) now, pay 60 pounds or thereabouts to register and I'm incorporated by Monday - maybe even later today. Existence is not notability. So far we only have the (alleged) airline's word for their activities. Reporting seems biased to their PR/activities. Realistically, running an airline takes money and experience. There are a number of blogs out there who have picked up on the subject calling them out. See, . I let those comments speak for themselves... pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - only exists on paper. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - we can always reinstate it when they actually start commercial operations. :) DBaK (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Further comment – have you seen their Twitter feed? It is very informative and appears to confirm that it is a hoax. This assumes that the URL we give is correct: that page gives us a link to this where you can find such gems as I have started a new airline with a difference. We have no planes, no plan and no clue. Give me cash for my trips to Thailand., or perhaps you would prefer I have no staff in my fantasy airline but I will bid for Monarch, EasyJet and Ryanair and rule the skies, all from my Chelmsford bedroom. People, I think this is a hoax and we are wasting our time. Delete it – we can, as I say above, always reinstate it on the day their first scheduled flight with paying passengers takes off ... DBaK (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is amazing that media outlets such as this give it airtime. Interesting reading... Let me just say this: bidders will normally submit elaborate, tangible bids that take an army of people weeks to prepare - in most cases through their mandated investment banks. This will usually come attached with already arranged financing in principle. Then a dataroom will be opened and an even bigger army of bankers and lawyers goes over every document before making binding bids with financing committed. The process is at this stage now. I have never ever heard of someone posting "bids" (what Atmosphere has done is rather a statement of intent) on their LinkedIn and cold-emailing random people. The source states that Atmosphere has not been shortlisted. I think it's reasonable to assume that one of TPG Capital, Etihad, Indigo Partners or National Investment and Infrastructure Fund will be successful. They should all be well funded already.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Completely erroneous and misleading information. This ‘company’ does not operate as an airline and is not a going concern. Stansted Airport is not commercially linked with this company. The company does not own or lease any aircraft, and ‘employed’ staff number is entirely fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.235.146 (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Debatable information at best. No need to be kept without proper sourcing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While I can see that WP:TOOSOON probably applies here, Atmosphere has made a bid for India's debt-laden Jet Airways. So, in all likelihood, more details (probably in the Indian media) will pour out shortly. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A tweet is in no way, an official legal tender. There is absolutely no proof the claim or tweet has any factual basis. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't referring to the tweet, but the coverage he got in the media, specifically on Firstpost and Quartz. Firstpost and Quartz. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a dream at the moment, hosted by a person of dubious background according to google images “Jason Unsworth fraud”
 * He has many social media accounts that are retweeted/reposted numerous times
 * Agree if it ever takes off then is the time to revisit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.186.2 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, etc.etc.. Not to mention that it is likely to be a fraudulent investment scam--Petebutt (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a blatant hoax on WP:G3 grounds. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete It is little more than some sort of publicity seeking exercise. The number of employees and aircraft are demonstrably rubbish (this company has a turnover according to Companies House of next to nothing, it’s just a shell company, so doesn’t employ and pay anyone). Pure fantasy. Delete and reinstate when he actually gets an AOC. The Jet saga is pure hype, he has no money, and no one ever makes this sort of bid on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.254.134 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Speedy delete" is no longer timely.  Thank you to deletion nominator and several others who sorted this out. --Doncram (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A note to the closing editor or administrator. There seem to be a lot of IPs lurking on this discussion. Please do make a note of those. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment - as I write there are about to be ~33 edits here from 15 editors, of whom 3 are editing from IP addresses. The stats are here. Can you please kindly explain how the three IPs are a lot and how their behaviour constitutes lurking? Is the lurking meant pejoratively and if so how so? Is lurking different from commenting and does it have some sinister intent? I am sure that the closer will have seen such situations before and will know how to deal with it but I honestly do not understand what the point is that you wish to make here: are you suggesting some malpractice? What effect would you like the closer's making a note to have? I'd be really grateful for some clarification. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am suggesting some malicious intent from IPs and users who haven't edited much before but land up on AfDs. This isn't an unusual thing and in the past many (including me) have made such a note. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see what you are saying, though I don't agree with you. I've just spent a few minutes skimming through the pprune thread cited above, and looking at related materials. None of this did anything to increase my faith in the article or to decrease my faith in the edits from the three IPs. But it will be interesting to see how this pans out. Thanks again for replying; with all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on my nomination and the above comments. I feel it may be good to raise a few points for consideration. As with many startups or early stage companies, there's a view to be taken if the company, the founder or both are notable. Person and company of course are subject to general guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST, WP:NTEMP and specific guidelines such as WP:NCORP for companies and WP:BASIC for people. The nomination is for the article about the company. When looking at the company separately from the individual (Mr. Unsworth), there is nothing from independent sources that substantiates any of the claims in the article. Critically, when talking about Atmosphere, media states they refer back to the company's website and claims they make in their social media feeds. In essence, none of the sources that talk about Atmosphere do so using independent contents. In addition, the vast majority of sources leads with "A British Entrepreneur...". Atmosphere is mentioned in passing as one of his interests, but the media focus seems to be on the person making the offer. This, is addition to the sheer lack of substantiation of any claims is a clear fail for Atmosphere. IMO, an article about Unsworth - which is yet to be written - would actually have more merit than an article about the non-operational airline that only exists on paper. Let me be clear, I am not proposing that such an article be written and I am equally sceptical it will pass a review. However, any such hypothetical article about Unsworth will need to pass notability for a person. Here I would particularly raise WP:BIO1E as the only coverage is in relation to his "bid" for Jet Airways at a time where the Jet Airways insolvency receives much attention. WP:TOOSOON has been cited and WP:NTEMP is probably also relevant. Related to this, the article and video published by CNBC's Indian franchise makes important reading. . In a nutshell, they make it very clear that pretty much all media coverage is not independently verified and based just on the person's claims. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I've done a little research on this, as a professional in the airline industry. The four 777 aircraft he refers to are going for scrap, not to him (the current owners have confirmed this). He does not own a B787 of any variety (according to Boeing, who would know). As for 1,000 employees, this too is rubbish; his accounts show no turnover, and the few people who seem to be involved are simply his immediate family, in the main. I'd agree with others - if he achieves a licence to be an airline (right now he is just a limited company, and in the UK I could easily start SARASTRO'S FLIGHTS TO MARS LTD, but that doesn't mean I have a spaceship), then let them restart a page. In the meantime, I think there are very real concerns about the probity of this.
 * Comment: Ready to close by any editor not involved, whether administrator or not.  Why is this still open. --Doncram (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2019 (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.