Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhezkazgan Air


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Zhezkazgan Air

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article that fails notability; the creator theirself tagged the page as non-notable. Jetstreamer Talk 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not see how an air company which carries out regular scheduled flights can not be notable. Will try to find more references later on.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found two, added to the article, now keep--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Added Some stuff and a refrence. it seems that seeing as it has a website and another indepent website lists it as an airline, i cant see how it is not notable. Samuseal (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – Though there is now a reference in this article, there is no indication of significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources as stated at WP:GNG. &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep only because it is notable enough for ICAO to give it a code and callsign allocation. Only one Yak-40 but it is an airliner rather than just a commuter or light aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and common sense. This is a notable company - just because we're having difficulty finding English language sources doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.
 * Additionally, it's worth noting that such nominations may be a little BITEy, in turning away good-faith editors: yes, a potential conflict of interest exists, but this article doesn't seem to be in violation of WP:NPOV.
 * -- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The matter here is that the author created the article including no sources at all. It's not being discussed here if anyone can come later and find sources. The creation carries with the responsibility of starting a properly sourced page. This was not the case.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 26 November 2012 (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.