Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhong Hang Tai General Aviation 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 no consensus for deletion. Unfortunately, the argument focused more around the nature of the company's business than around the availability and sufficiency of sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zhong Hang Tai General Aviation Airlines

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy deletion for no assertion of notability was declined, it lacks context, lacks multiple reliable sources writing about this subject in detail (two referenced are more about the jet than the airline). In its current state, and for the last 9 months, it has failed WP:CORP Россавиа Диалог 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs references and expanding beyond the stub form it currently is in. I believe all airlines are notable. However this needs more information, the company has lots of news references that can be used but doesn't seem to have its own site. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Россавиа Диалог 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is presently insufficient content, context or reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If this company was quoted on a public stock exchange, I would say keep, but without a listing or sales information is too early to assume that notability is to come. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a number of sources out there. The context and notability is that it's an airline.  They recently ordered fifty jets (as covered in New York Times, Aviation.com, local papers in Colorado where the planes are manufactured, etc - see http://www.aviation.com/070607_adama7002.html) so it's real and no trivial endeavor.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On the contrary, there is no content to suggest they are going to act an an airline; they might lease the planes, or (if the article is correct), they are going to sell the planes on a flying time-share basis. There is no evidence that they meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. The fact that it's called an airline is evidence enough. Herunar (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete General aviation means it's a charter or private air line, and has no scheduled service. Not enough sources to prove notability.  Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We do not discriminate against a company based on whether it operates scheduled or charter flights, or whether it is an aircraft leasing company. A company capable of ordering 50 jets is likely to be notable. The article just needs to be worked on.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pending more extensive coverage by reliable sources. THe issue is not whether it will be a private airflight company or a public airline, the issue is significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.  I would call the purchase story referenced above (the article's only current ref) trivial.Pastordavid (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (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.