Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VI Airlink (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VI Airlink

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

No additional sources have been forthcoming since the first AfD. The reason given then still applies: Tiny airline, with a "fleet" of only two small planes. Perhaps it will become notable in the future, but at this point there is only 1 independent source in a very minor publication. Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Googling turns up additional sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Being a "very minor" publication does not matter as long as it is independent and reliable. Size of the fleet does not matter as long as it is a scheduled airline that meets the standards - which it does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 is an in-passing mention only. 2 is a news release (not even checked for spelling errors by the editors, as noted below the message). 3 does not seem to be a reliable source (in their "about" statement it appears to be ads only, no editorial control). 4 seems to be a good source, but it is barely 1 paragraph long and really does not seem to count as "significant coverage". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to me that source 4 provided by Bushranger is different from reference 2 on the page. As such, that is 2 independent sources, and it passes WP:GNG. Is it a stub? Yes. Do we have sources to make it more than a stub? No. Do we have enough sources to keep the stub on Wikipedia? Yes. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both are barely one paragraph long and neither count as the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant to operate international services enough to need agreement with the American FAA and significant enough for the ICAO to allocate a code. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (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.