Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbit Express 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 keep. Consensus was keep, particularly after addition of Turkish sources. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Express Airlines

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

Article about a small airline which does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Searches bring up several hits for other companies with similar names, but nothing to support this companies notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been rewritten completely. Please recheck before making any action. CeeGee 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems notable and acceptable at its current state and may need any further familiar attention. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see what makes this pass WP:NCOMPANY; User:SwisterTwister - would you mind commenting on that? Which sources seem to provide in-depth, mainstream, reliable coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus Yes I agree but there's the chance there's better Turkish coverage (but I simply wouldn't know as I'm not Turkish) so this needs familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SwisterTwister I totally agree better Turkish sources may exist and I am open to reconsidering my vote if they are presented and analyzed. But we can't assume they may exist, per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of reasoned discussion of the sourcing provided in the article, which appears at first glance to be minimally sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CeeGee (talk · contribs)'s excellent rewrite and addition of Turkish sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2015 (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.