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 Yasht101 09:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Thai Tiger Airways

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article describes a failed proposal, which is not expected to have any lasting effects or influence. I believe the subject is not notable by itself, and does not warrant a stand-alone article. Paul_012 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Even if the airline does not get off the ground, it is still notable. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will need some copy-editing and other cleanup though, but that is absolutely no reason to delete. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though its not running it does not mean it's not notable. Per above. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 11:08, 4 May 2012 (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.