Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intercontinental Pacific Airways


 * 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. There was a consensus for deletion. The page has no independent, reliable sources and, most importantly, the key information in the article fails WP:V. Finally, there is the point that most of the content is copyvio from the subject's website. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Intercontinental Pacific Airways
Unsourced article with dubious information. Multiple sources can't be found which would afford this non-operational "airline" notability inline with policy. If such a company does exist it would be more of a travel agency or air broker, not an airline company. There are also conflict of interest concerns given the article creator has the username ipaph (which so happens to be the companies not operational website address) Россавиа Диалог 14:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Keep : Similar to a book, not everyone always has access to "the information." However, the source (a link to the website) is quite relevant and clear. When a website is no longer available, please check internet archives such as "The Way back machine". In this case we're lucky because we have 3 archived crawled version of the website here. Furthermore, the archive indicates that there are trademarks. This is a major hint that there is "other info" out there on the airline, not including the airlines government documentation and call signs, which meets Notability guidelines. Again, just because "you" can't access the information doesn't meen it's didn't or doesn't exist. Please remember this when writing an article so we, Wikipedia, can maintain historical accuracy in all levels of our work.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 14:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete seems it did exist per | this however based on the current website | here (and lack of information on it) and the fact that there is no other info out there on the airline it fails notability guidelines.  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The mere existence of a callsign does not provide notability and the existence (and in this case the non-existence) of a callsign should not, and not, be used to determine whether an entity is notable. Furthermore, inline with WP policies, articles can not be written by utilising sources wholly from the entity on which is being written about, meaning that the existence of a website some time ago does not provide notability. Additionally, as you have provided the link to the website (and yes, I already regulary use archive.org to obtain information not found elsewhere), the additional reason of WP:COPYVIO is now also raised, as the article is a complete word for word copyright violation of the website. The destination list has been removed completely by myself as there is absolutely no evidence that this entity ever actually flew a single flight under its own AOC (the non-existence of a callsign would be an indication that it has not, as this is a norm for flights which operate between international destinations of which those countries are members of the ICAO). Aerotransport.org states that this entity was a failed project between 1999 and 2002, which means it never got off the ground, and anything else from the airline website is merely self-promoting huff and puff, e.g. just where are these 747s it supposedly got? And the A300? I also find no evidence it ever took delivery of any 737. And this opinion of mine has been formulated by doing extensive searches of sources which are available (including a couple which I have special access to). Hence my nomination for Afd. --Россавиа Диалог 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete delete as per nom - search on specialised aviation websites fails to find any evidence of aircraft operation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I found no references that established notability. Google News and News archives searches for references turned up zero hits that could be used as references. A Google web search turned up <40 unique hits. If this new airline is successful, then it may get some reliable sites that can serve as references for a future second article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of verifiability.-- danntm T C
 * Keep - part of Philippine aviation history. - DaughterofSun (talk) 17:05, 9 May 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.