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 Failures and hoaxes may become notable through extensive coverage in reliable sources; in this argument, supporters of retention clearly have precedent and logic in their favor. Several deletion commenters appear to miss this point, rendering their arguments unconvincing. Xoloz (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Gibraltar[edit]

Fly Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An airline that never existed, and since June 2007, will never exist. Wikipedia is not a collection of airline proposals. Chris.B (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are reliable, independent sources, with significant coverage. A notable plan is notable, a notable hoax is notable. I can't quite determine if it is a hoax or a failed plan, but it is certainly notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Being notable does not automatically justify inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris.B (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Martijn. Justin ^chat 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There's enough coverage in sources to satisfy WP:V, and the article could be expanded upon. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, seems well referenced with several secondary sources and should be kept either as a notable proposed airline or else a notable hoax - Dumelow (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Is well referenced, even found some more information with a reference and added it to the article. Seems that it's a pretty big deal to the Government of Gibraltar. From all the secondary sources, it does not appear to be a hoax and is notable.--Pmedema (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You're right, it never existed, but it's still clearly notable in its non-existance, what with all the sources cited in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - could be expanded, to verify at the article. At the moment there is a sufficient number of reliable sources, however. — Rudget _{Contributions} 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - of course notable plans are notable, like the Palace of Soviets. This thing, though? Nah. Just step back for a moment and think. So an airline was planned for under a year, and then got cancelled (and the cancellation happened to be mentioned in a few sources). So what? Why should we care? Does this have any relevance whatsoever, any lasting impact? Why, oh why, should this be included in an encyclopedia? And yes, I'm aware WP:V probably permits us to include it, but whether it's wise to do so is another matter entirely, and the answer to that is, I submit, a resounding "no"! Biruitorul (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there never was an airline and there never will be, the 'claims' are smoke and mirrors and always have been, The CAA never heard of the airline, it only exists on wikipedia. How on earth can it be 'expanded' when there is no substance to it ? --Gibnews (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that there never was, or will be a Fly Gibraltar, but fairly extensive media coverage makes it notable, even if it never existed or will exist (just like the above mentioned Palace of the Soviets, but on a smaller scale). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has good coverage in secondary sources, and is well-sourced. Looks notable to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable series of events. Shiva_eVolved 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sure there are sources, but I'm still not sure how this makes it notable. How many failed startups with a little bit of media coverage need a Wikipedia article? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like it has notability to me. --Sharkface217 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said it didn't. :) Chris.B (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely irrelevant article. Why don't we have articles on everything that doesn't exist? Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: W don't have articles on most things that don't exist because there is no notability for them, and they don't have reliable secondary sources. Some do, like the aforementioned Palace of Soviets, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this airline. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The two examples that you have provided are undoubtedly notable, but this? There were never any aircraft and everything was all hot air coupled with press releases of unsupported claims. Quite frankly, being a failed concept, I don't think it could ever be very notable. Otherwise I might just publicise my plan to build a time-machine, and what's more, write an article on it. Chris.B (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And in case of independent reliable sources, I'd support the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I could arrange some press releases about Chris's time machine project and a photoshopped picture which is all there ever was to substantiate 'Fly Gibraltar'. Next April 1st :) --Gibnews (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of the article references do you think are pressreleases? 2-6 sure don't look like press releases to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gibnews (he's a respected journalist in a small community with an effective grapevine and I trust his judgement both on and off Wiki) and Biruitorul. Alice^✉ 07:42, 18 December 2007 (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.