Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Commission Air


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Commission Air

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Declined A7. After the tag was placed, the author added prose referring to a newspaper article (I think this was the author's attempt at a citation.) I converted the reference into an inline citation and MOSifed the article as a whole, but I could not find any way to verify the Ann Arbor News article being referenced. A search of the newspaper's archives turns up nothing whatsoever, and when I attempted to find other sources Google only comes back with links to the company's official website, blog entries and a couple of press releases and GNews turns up a single article that makes only a passing reference to Great Commission Air, but nothing verifying the print article listed.

No coverage in non-trivial, secondary sources that I could find, fails WP:N and WP:V. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no need for sources to be available online, only that they should be in principle verifiable. I'm sure that there are libraries that hold back issues of The Ann Arbor News. Unless someone checks it and find that it doesn't back up the article we should assume good faith and accept it as a valid source. A Google News archive search actually gets two hits, not one, the second of which covers the crash described in the article. Having said al that I'm not sure that these sources add up to significant coverage of this airline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment. The Ann Arbor News article does come up in a search of their website, along with three other mentions of the subject, but the citation in our article gives the wrong date - I'll fix it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand articles don't need to be available online to use as a source, it was just that I couldn't find anything else on the subject. Maybe I was searching google news incorrectly. -Senseless!... says you, says me 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - two of the items from the Ann Arbor News are "in brief" meaning non-signidficant coverage. The last likely refers to the same this this is referring to which is more about the crash and the charity is just mentioned as the provider of the flight. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * comment admitedly slight, but the charity and the flight are mentioned here. Artw (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources available appear not to provide substantial coverage of the airline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (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.