Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroair


 * 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. Secret account 22:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Vibroair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This business charter airline fails WP:CORP: It has not been the subject of any significant third-party coverage. Some editors seem to regard airlines as inherently notable once they offer scheduled flights or operate certain kinds of larger aircraft. With Vibroair, neither is the case. FoxyOrange (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as nom failed to review WP:BEFORE. Sources are not required to be in English, so I don't know why, , , and were overlooked, not to mention this English source:. At first glance, there seem to be plenty of sources to establish notability. — Rutebega  ( talk ) 16:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment: I do not think that I did anything wrong by setting up this deletion discussion. Of course, there are sources. But as I said above, these do not establish notability as there is no in-depth coverage of Vibroair itself. Four of the five links you gave are all the same: covering an order the company has made with Embraer. The other one is a Vibroair press release about the new aircraft type being put into service. As there is no inherent notability guideline for airlines, this is just not enough to pass WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". I believe that the sources I listed suitably establish notability when combined, as per WP:CORPDEPTH. While most of the sources are in the context of the Embraer aircraft purchase, they each describe Vibroair specifically. As an addendum, I wasn't intending to attack you for opening this AFD, and I continue to assume good faith. — Rutebega ( talk ) 19:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As "routine communiqués" announcing aircraft purchases, the sources fail CORPDEPTH. There are similar mentions in European Business Air News magazine, but again strictly routine. Nearly all of the significant information about the company itself is provided by a press release, hardly independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not a nominator's task to find sources for the article. WP:BURDEN applies here. The article fails WP:NCORP,and if anyone does not want the article to be deleted, just add the proper sources to it.--Jetstreamer Talk 03:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE applies, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe the sources provided satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, the coverage seems pretty routine to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 1 March 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.