Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octavia 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia Airlines

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

This company fails WP:CORP entirely. There just is not any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources to be found. Obviously, this (now defunct) airline did not leave a significant impact behind, so it is inherently non-notable. FoxyOrange (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The suggestion that there is 'no impact left = non-notable' forgets that notability is not temporary. However this appears to have never been notable in the first place; the presumption that scheduled airline = notability does not apply here as it was a charter outfit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. No RS can be found to substantiate meager content. dci | TALK 00:32, 1 March 2013 (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.