Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metis TransPacific 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Metis TransPacific Airlines

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is largely a fluff piece as well as furthering what has long been suspected to be a hoax airline. I do not believe that this article or even "organization" meets our notability requirements. Furthermore, the sourcing quality is largely lacking and what is provided is either too promotional or not reliable per our established standards. -MBK004 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it's notable. It's a notable hoax. If multiple sources suggest that an organisation may be fictional (and is controversial as a result), that means we should pay extra scrutiny to sources, not that we must delete it - wikipedia has lots of fine articles on hoaxes. In this case we have some good sources to establish notability. I have added an extra ref on the hoax; a Macau Daily Times article. If some content in the article appears to take the airline too seriously, we should correct that content; but the lede currently says "Metis TransPacific Charter Airlines is an airline that claimed to be based in Macau, People's Republic of China; the actual existence of the airline has been disputed. Its website is no longer online" so, as it stands, I doubt the article is furthering a hoax; I think it mostly takes the right stance. bobrayner (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the article history, I suspect there may have been one or two COI editors involved in the past. I'll watchlist it. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per bobrayner--enough sources to suggest this is a notable hoax.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (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.