Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Culebra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The Sunshine Man 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Culebra

Air Culebra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable airline. No sources other than the company's official site. Eddie 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Somehow I feel that airlines are like schools - they're notable just because, even if they're not really notable. Maybe not. Shalom Hello 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even small airlines make up part of a region's transportation system which is about as significant as that of small railway lines, or highways to small places. In this case, this airline appears to be one of only a few which provide passenger service to airports like Vieques and Culebra, and is therefore of some significance, at least on a local scale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am unconvinced that this "airline" even exists anymore. All of the reviews I can find that mention their service are from 2005 or earlier. Their "official" homepage redirects to a homepage for Air America Carribean, who do offer service to Vieques and Culebra among others. I can't find anything to indicate that Culebra Air was purchased by this one, or maybe they just took over flight operations, or what - I cannot find any information suggesting this airline still operates or ever was notable. Arkyan • (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and then "tag" as "stub". Tony the Marine 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because this airline did exist and was notable for a period of time. If not, we'd have to erase a good portion of wikipedia's articles. I will tag it as a stub shall it be voted to be kept. Antonio Woody Man Martin 2:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, google books and news can be used to add sources. John Vandenberg 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have been thinking, we have a lot of these stuby articles about minor airlines in Puerto Rico so why don't we create a page on List of minor airlines in Puerto Rico and merge them all there, that way with some good references it can reach Featured List status. -凶 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. It is preferable to having a slew of eternal stub articles. Arkyan • (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think a slew of stub articles of notable topics is much better than no articles and simply a list of those topics. After all, stubs, like this one, contain useful and valuable information too. --Oakshade 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's certainly nothing wrong with stub articles. Ones that are likely to remain stubs indefinitely on the other hand .. I feel that sort of information is better handled by logically grouping them together in a larger list article rather than spread out over smaller stubs with little content. In the end though, having the information here or there is an editorial decision, not an AfD decision. Arkyan • (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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.