Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluesky Aviation Services Ltd


 * 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   keep. gNews fail =/= lack of notability, especially for an African commuter airline. The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bluesky Aviation Services Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I could not find any secondary reliable sources for the company that do anything other than list its contact information or aviation code, and a Google search of "Bluesky Aviation Services" turns up only 9 links other than the Wikipedia page. It quite easily fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rename) as it is notable enough to be assigned a ICAO code and callsign, really needs to be moved to the real name "Blue Sky Aviation Services" if this AfD is a keep. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's so notable, we should be able to find some sources that provide Significant coverage. There simply are none out there. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteAn airline, but still covered by WP:ORG? Lacks sources, lacks coverage. Heywoodg   talk  21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename per MilborneOne. For a small African airline, it has adequate sourcing.  Compare to other similar fleets from the continent. --Mareklug talk 14:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Try searching with the string: Blue Sky Aviation Services Kenya. I also found another Wikipedia Kenyan airline article referencing this airline, and wikilinked it there. --Mareklug talk 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2011 (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 04:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. zero explanation provided on how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * strong delete I tried searching the 2 alternate names in gnews. Not one hit. Clear fail of WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment it may not have made the news but an airline that has an ICAO code and callsign and operates an aircraft the size of the Let L-410 Turbolet is notable in airline terms. Even gets a mention on snopes at http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/lionplane.asp which is also at, dont normally get an airline related to the animal liberation front. MilborneOne (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Question What is your reasoning for stating that every airline with an ICAO code/callsign is notable for this project. Is this a precedent from previous deletion discussion, a policy, or simply your own opinion?  I will admit I'm on the fence on this one.  It is obviously an existing, operating passenger airline and it does have that one famous lion photo, but there is simply no coverage beyond their own homepage and various unreliable directory listing websites.  I have to assume that there is at least somewhat of a location bias in coverage here, but I'm not entirely sure that that assumption along justifies a keep !vote from me.  Ravendrop 00:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It was not just the allocation of an ICAO code/callsign because a lot of non-notable flying clubs have codes allocated but the combination of an official code and the fact that it operates a small airliner were plus points in notability. The fact that it hasnt been in the news or the only publicity outside of Kenya is the lion image is probably related to it being a small operator in Africa. So it does exist the question is does the existance of a small airline in Kenya that doesnt appear to have done anything wrong meet the requirements. Strange but if it had a crash or financial wrong doing it would meet the mark! My thought is it can be kept but it is up to others to draw a consensus from these discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree. I was concerned that you were just considering having an ICAO code as making the airline fully notable, when, as you point out, there are numerous non-noatble airlines/schools/clubs that have there own codes, but should not have their own article.  Just have a look through List of airline call signs (all most all of which have an ICAO code), but only about half are notable enough for an article. Ravendrop 15:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a small scheduled regional airline in Kenya, doing exactly what many small regional airlines in North American and Europe do as well, but their notability is not questioned. Per past precedence scheduled airlines operating decent sized planes, which this one does, have been kept as notable.  I also feel that there is a very high possibility of the airline's base of operations being partly responsible for the lack of coverage.  Ravendrop 15:40, 23 October 2011 (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.