Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigo Airlines

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. John254 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indigo Airlines

Indigo Airlines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is essentially a long winded advertisement for an ebook (mentioned at the end). The airline itself, to my knowledge, never flew (though there IS an Indian carrier with the same name, it is certainly not the airline mentioned in this article), and the most I could find out about it was a bunch of pr announcements and a couple of mentions in various magazines (whom all mention that it will fly in THE FUTURE, not that it ever really flew). Do we really need to catalog every failed business idea? SiberioS (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete google search "Indigo Airlines" Fenton -wikipedia for gets 5 ghits, two of which are copies of this and 3 of which are irrelevant. Doesn't exist--ad/promo. JJL (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment did you have a typo, ghits is 64,400. Recommend using Find sources: Indigo Airlines — news, books, scholar
Comment No typo--I used Fenton to eliminate the Indian airline of the same name. The source below seems like a good one but is only one source thus far. The search below gets mostly the Indian airline. How many target this airline? JJL (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps the addition of Fenton was a mistake. Minor source SunCreator (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment That doesn't make it notable. Thousands of businesses are started and fail every year. It is not Wikipedia's place to document them. Some failed businesses meet notability (ie: Enron, DMC makers of the DeLorean). An "airline" (which it wasn't..it was not organized, nor recognized as such as the article you link indicates) whom lasted for three months, and whose notability comes from the fact that the founder WROTE the article in question to promote his own ebook, doesn't cut it. SiberioS (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - It's an Associated Press article. Not by the author. If the article is notable, it's notable and that doesn't change over time because the company is no longer active. We don't remove articles on the Dinosaur, Typewriter etc. SunCreator (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The comparison is absurd. I can hand you newspaper clippings of local establishments that have opened and gone under in my neighborhood. That doesn't make them notable. And neither is this. This is not the collapse of Eastern, Laker Airways, or Braniff. companies that were notable in their own time. This is not a company founded, and whom failed, by an individual whom is notable (ie: Delorean and DMC). There numerous failed business attempts in the opening days of the internet, of which more was written was about, hyped, and said, and lasted longer than this "airline", and they aren't included on Wikipedia. SiberioS (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Rewriting in this case wold be a rather drastic cut. A reasonable article would have been less likely to be nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Subject of the article is clearly notable, but the text needs to be reqorked and additional sources include. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable (Plenty of other sources, e.g. Time Magazine.[1] Failure of a business does not remove its notability. Encyclopedic subject with plenty of context.Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep convinced by Time magazine source above. JJL (talk) 19:05, 11 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.