Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerolíneas Sudamericanas

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. A merge to Lloyd Aéreo Boliviano may be considered. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerolíneas Sudamericanas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed company, did never anything to become notable. Cleary fals WP:CORP. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even failed attempts at being an airline are worthy of note. There is no shortage of references on Google for this failed airline. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a significant in-depth reference at El Mundo, and a few blog posts mention that it did start flying. Additionally, this fmbolivia article seems to indicate that the cancellation of the license was politically motivated to support both Aerosur and Boliviana de Aviación. Additionally, the Spanish Wikipedia entry, and a few other hits seem to suggest that it very quickly formed a strategic alliance with Lloyd Aéreo Boliviano which essentially combined the two companies (plus the 727s seem to be from LAB directly as well). I'm leaning towards keep, but also think that a merge with LAB, especially its attempts to restart, may be a viable (perhaps better?) option. Ravendrop 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, thanks for the thorough reference checking by Ravendrop, it appears this received enough press to pass wp:GNG. riffic (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.