Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovakian 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Slovakian Airlines

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a failed business project, an airline which never became operational (a short discussion on that matter can be found here). All there can be found about this company are product announcements, which per WP:BALL should not be used to establish notability. Further, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources, which would be needed if one was to apply the WP:CORP criteria. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of airlines of Slovakia as a likely search term for that content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NTEMP. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples include:, , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 10:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - As boring as this article is and how little knowledge will be gained by having it, it does meet WP:GNG thanks to the references supplied by NA1000.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (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.