Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly Gibraltar

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 no consensus. A borderline case with decent arguments in either direction.--Wafulz 03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fly_Gibraltar

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

The Project has been cancelled so the page is no longer of interest on wikipedia -Gibnews 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for reason given -Gibnews 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:CORP, as it is clearly WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A putative airline with plans which were put on the back burner; these plans have now been officially cancelled. Fails WP:NN. Chris Buttigieg^talk 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, failed to achieve notability. (Plus, isn't it a little heavy?) --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; I can find no way that this fails WP:CORP: it is the subject of secondary sources (Google News Search, in particular The Times, a national newspaper, which has a long article about it: Gibraltar for the weekend?), is of NPOV, is not advertising, and "attracted notice" prior to its cancellation. Likewise cancellation of a project should not necessarily make it any less notable. Laïka 15:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the moment. I have not researched this, but is it certain that the project will come to absolutely nothing? Peterkingiron 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment If you read the front page story in the Gibraltar Chronicle, www.chronicle.gi they say the company name has been cancelled - the Government of Gibraltar are very protective about the use of the word 'Gibraltar' in company names. Although there could be another 'fly Gibraltar ltd' it seems it will not be this one and in the very unlikely event these guys start an airline it would have a different name. So unless there is a category for imaginary airlines, the article has no merit. Incidentally, the Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest daily newspaper in the world. --Gibnews 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment... if you're reading a front page story, doesn't that demonstrate notability? --DeLarge 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment no, it shows how smoke and mirrors can fool some of the people for some of the time. --Gibnews 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This "airline" does NOT exist. In the hypothetical case that the proposed plans outlined in this article are taken further sometime in the future, the article could be then be created again. Gibmetal 77^talk 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; This is history, history of the Rock and the difficulties that are faced with starting up airlines despite given such talk by the Government that we have greater opportunities to now work with the "Cordoba Agreement". Although Fly Gibraltar will not be launching it cannot be forgotten and the hard work that has been put into it. Many civil servants have added to the airline knowing how things could've gone wrong all to have to bow down because there are filthy rich people out there that'd rather buy a condo in Miami than help an airline that will struggle to find its way in the skies for a while!--Cm tony 21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if it was notable it remains notable even if it fails.DGG 04:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Cm tony; it was noted in reliable sources. John Vandenberg 04:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets notability criteria even though it failed. Not a great article -- it reads a bit like a bunch of press release headlines strung together at the moment, and is very poorly structured -- but if some backstory can be added it'd certainly deserve to stay. --DeLarge 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If Wikipedia had an article to do with every idea, hypothetical corporation or celebrity then Wikipedia would be filled with useless articles. This article is no different. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Airlines are notable, but if they never got off the ground they are of little interest. Even with the coverage mentioned, the whole failed enterprise remains a news story which had little to no impact on the industry, and will soon be forgotten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment The airline made several headlines in the international media and is broadcast on the Gibraltar Government Tourism website Visit Gibraltar.

DeLarge...I'd like to add I did add subsequential information to this page in particular and one wiki member decided it was to be deleted as it wasn't verifiable. My uncle is local media here at GibFocus.gi and I can get any story and information as I wish...I've added...it looked good it was taken apart by a holligan i imagine! Sjakkalle...There are many failures on wikipedia of corporations and the like...this one is no different. Biofoundationsoflanguage...sorry to admit but its already there, there are useless articles cos some are one line of the date of borth the name and the place of birth. Not even stating the persons significance and they roam freely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm tony (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 June 2007

Comment - The bottom line is that there never was an airline There were never any aircraft, there were no flights, its utter fabrication, press releases with unsubstantiated claims some of which are false, like the reference to being unable to obtain an operating licence - the CAA have no trace of any application. It stinks. --Gibnews 11:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - What's the point of having a "history" article of something that never happened?--Mike18xx 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, the news and magazines it was mentioned in really did happen. What is the point of deleting an article that already exists ? John Vandenberg 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Should every non-materializing commercial venture get a Wikipedia article if it received some press before going vaporware? If it were some big scam where people got bilked, that'd qualify -- but where's the meat on these bones?--Mike18xx 06:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, each should be evaluated on its merits, and the quality of the sources that it was noted in. This is a third airline to a remote destination, so it is quite a significant venture (in a local sense; see Gibraltar#Transport). John Vandenberg 06:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is it did not happen. it was an idea that was floated by a construction company which wanted to get work rebuilding and developing the airport terminal, the press releases looked good, too good to be true. The article creates the impression that its real and brings discredit to Gibraltar as a home of virtual airlines with no substance. --Gibnews 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The airline was cancelled without even a single plane taking off the ground, being a failed concept, it shouldn't be very notable in the world.--Kylohk 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- fails WP:CORP- incorporate anything of use into Gibraltar Airport. Astrotrain 20:26, 18 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.