Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenair

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 Userfy (send to Draft). Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenair

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Little to no third party coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline operating large aircraft that has clearly been in operation for a number of years is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps it should be tagged for references required rather than AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any references to this charter airline in Google Books / Google News, and even the sole external link in the article is dead. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist. Article is salvageable. In extremis, userfy to my namespace, but don't delete. Zazpot (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the statement in the lede is true: "Around late 1990, it was the largest private sector airline in Turkey", then surely it would make it a Keep? Perhaps we would need to scan Turkish sources to get GNG? Britishfinance (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have now sought guidance about this. Zazpot (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per Zazpot. Could be notable, I can't analyse non-Roman-alphabet sources at the moment due to technical issues, so it'd be a shame to lose something that's notable but could be improved, especially when we've got an editor who's volunteering to incubate it. SITH (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the English-language references in the article now are not sufficient to meet the GNG and keep the article in mainspace, but I would be surprised if there wasn't any significant coverage in Turkish media. YSSYguy (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Sources exist. These sources are verifiable per WP:NONENG. Therefore, this article is Notable. I also want to tally the results so far for the Airline Nominations by Tyw7; AB Aerotransport - keep, Greenair - ongoing (likely Userfy), Venus Airlines - delete, Quikjet Airlines - no consensus, and Finnaviation - merge. There is a strong possibility every single one will have closed with a different outcome. I just find that interesting. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - at the very least, this needs some copyediting which can be done in the userspace. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple votes for "userfy" because the topic is notable, should just be understood as "Keep". People, don't be wimpy!!!! Seems like a notable topic. As others state, sure, tag it for development, but there is a pretty wide consensus that the topic is notable, it seems. So just KEEP it. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, but there isn't enough sources to pass notability. There /maybe/ sources or maybe not.
That's why many calls for userfying. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:42, 6 March 2019 (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.