Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerolíneas Sudamericanas (2nd nomination)

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. and userify Courcelles 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aerolíneas Sudamericanas

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

This is just some failed business project. The airline did not operate a single flight, so it fails the general notability guideline: This is just a plan, nothing with any encyclopedic relevance. Also, there is only one significant coverage in reliable third party sources [1] (which was given as a keep-reason during the first afd debate), but this seems to be just a re-phrasing of the information given by the airline officials. To me, this fails WP:CORP. (For comparison, have a look at Baltia Air Lines: It was deleted even though there had been a lager amount of significant coverage). AdAstra reloaded (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make my point clear: This is not about whether there is significant coverage, but whether a proposed business plan without any noteworthy consequences should be notable enough to be covered in a Wikipedia article or not. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned in the last AfD, there is something more to this company failing (i.e. political interference) than the article suggests (see my links from the previous AfD). However, I agree that in its current form it is not worthy of an article. I am not sure if there have been any noteworthy consequences of the failing (the Boliviafm article suggests that political interference was also involved with LAB, and since it failed shortly after, may have been involved in its demise, but that is pure speculation on my part), or if a buisness failing due to a government attempting to protect its own companies counts as notable. Finally, there seems to be very close connections with this airline and LAB, and potentially (especially the issues resulting in its demise) could be merged to that page. Unfortunetly I am not in a position to be able to do this due to time contsrtains, etc. but the course of action that I see it should be either A) flag it for recovery and see if anything more comes up or B) deletion. Bottom line, in its current form it should not be kept. Ravendrop 17:41, 29 July 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) 00:04, 3 August 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, Courcelles 00:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to write an article with sources to show that this airline met the general notability guidelines despite the fact that it never actually operated a flight. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan's rationale. I hesitate to use the article's current status as a reason to delete if we have sources. But even the person who found them agrees the viability of the article is questionable. Maybe leave the talk page and list the known sources, in case someone more knowledgeable and with access to things like "Flap Internacional Magazine, 433" comes along later? John Slocum (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Request If the outcome of this process is delete, can an admin move the page into my userspace. I will have some time in 3-4 weeks to have a closer look at the sources and improve the article if it is indeed viable. Ravendrop 18:47, 13 August 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.