Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Wings

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 per absence of consenus to delete (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging/redirecting is left up to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Wings

Arab Wings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable; also, according to the article, only two airplanes are operated by Arab Wings. This is obviously a tiny company and isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Kironide (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Jordanian Airlines and RS coverage exists but probably not enough to exist on its own. Suggest merge to parent airline. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on the grounds it must be notable enough for the ICAO to issue a three-letter designator, it actually has at least three aircraft with more on order. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst the existence of an ICAO code doesn't afford notability, as they can be (and are) assigned to non-notable entities such as ground handling companies, the airline itself is notable, merging into Royal Jordanian is erroneous, as it is no longer owned by that airline. Most corporate VIP operators aren't notable, but this one having a long history needs to be looked at in more detail, particularly by using Arabic language sources. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:21, 21 April 2008 (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.