Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Airways Australia


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Airways Australia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:ORG company is not even opperating yet, possible Copyvio Rackabello 06:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 08:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

*Merge to Tiger Airways until it can hold its own. Supposed to happen, but even as a separate division, I don't see it being able to support its own weight, it's just a case of Tiger expanding to service Australia. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs a major rewrite, and there are slightly worrying WP:CRYSTAL aspects, but there are several sources that indicate this will certainly go ahead: The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald. It's mostly owned by Singapore Airlines, and has actually operated in Australia since 2005 (Singapore to Darwin), and this article refers to the Australian subsidiary which was incorporated last month. I would say with some sources like the ones I have mentioned, this is notable enough. --Canley 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL ... recreate after they start operations. &mdash; 08:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this company is not even operating yet, and most of the article is mere speculation. WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies.  Lankiveil 09:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong Delete or Merge The information regarding the companies' parent Tiger Airways in respect of it's Australian expansion is already well documented there. There is no need to repeat this information in a new article which will essentially repeat the same information, not withstanding the companies planes will likely carry the same call signs as the Singaporean parent. I cite the deletion debate for Acer Computer Australia, which was exactly the same scenario and was merged into Acer and then deleted. This is not withstanding significant WP:NPOV issues in the article. thewinchester 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Crystal applies. Parent company page exists.--ZayZayEM 12:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to parent company Tiger Airways until such time as the airline is operating and has a distinct identity separate from the parent. --Scott Davis Talk 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD was very premature. The article was created today.  I would give the article 5 days before assessing it. "Tiger Airways Australia" generates a modest 84 unique hits, but I think they pass WP:CORP as a product or service that can be forked. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Keep per VK35's note below. I'm willing to give it a chance if there's a commitment for improvement. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. or Merge . This chances of this airline operating is very high.  Some people will improve articles but not take the effort to create a new page.  This page has great potential.  If it is kept, I personally promise to expand it.  I don't want to put in all that effort now if there's a chance that it will be deleted in a few days.VK35  23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have is that it appears to pretty much be another operating division of Tiger Airways. Is there something else out there that says otherwise? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a few good ideas for the article, some of which others may or may not have thought of. I have rescued 2 articles from deletion by significantly improving them.  I don't choose to rescue many articles.  The Tiger Airways Australia article has even more potential than the other articles that I have rescued.  I now believe that the article should be a Strong Keep because there is now a commitment for significant improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK35 (talk • contribs)
 * Please noteI have made significant changes to the article to try to prevent deletion. This effort is not finished.  The article will get even better! Consider changing your opinion/vote if you think the article is now worthy of keeping. VK35  21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking good, keep up the good work. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. The predictions section should go. However, the sources cited by Canley as well as in this Google News source indicate notability. . Capitalistroadster 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per VK35 Bandwagonman 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this starting of the new airline has been confirmed, there are independent sources to prove this new airline as well. Its official and its nowhere near from crystal ballism. Cleaning up the article is one thing that can be done in the near future. Terence 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Terence above. --Candy-Panda 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adding the tag does mitigate issues over WP:CRYSTAL somewhat, so long that all remaining points are adequately sourced. We can and do write articles on "planned" stuff, some of which never materialise, but that alone can hardly be primary motivation to delete an article, for the planning process and debate can be encyclopedic too. May I also note that we regularly have articles on subsidiaries, including fully-owned ones. This is a subsidiary of Tiger Airways incorporated in Australia, and not merely an extension of its operational services or an operational branch of the parent company incorporated in Singapore.--Huaiwei 16:17, 13 April 2007 (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.