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. B music ian 03:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western (airline)[edit]

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

Considering how quickly this airline collapsed and how few flights they successfully completed, it's hard to see much notability here D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't see any reason to delete this: it was a commercial airline that actually flew, the article already has sources, and there appear to be plenty more potential sources at GNews[1].--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs more references if it's to be kept: 2 articles from the same source only count as a single source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna find more source. This airline was a financial disaster before it ever even flew a single airplane. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that most companies which quickly go belly up don't warrant a Wiki page. But, getting an airline up and running is a significant event, and I can see people researching the airline (whether it be for a business class on How-Not-to-Run-an-Airline, or whatever...)JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – This article, in my opinion, is borderline on notablility, but the fact that it actually got off the ground, albeit for less than a month, is enough notability to have an article. I should mention that we do have Wikipedia articles for airlines that were proposed but never began flying, for example JetAmerica and FlyHawaii Airlines. —Comp dude¹²³ 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated those other airlines for deletion as well, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JetAmerica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyHawaii Airlines. Neither their existence nor their failure is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while short-lived, the fact that it existed and operated scheduled commercial flights is enough for it to be notable. "Being a financial disaster" does not reduce its notability. Also, no-one would doubt the notability of a single-aircraft passenger airline that was currently in operation, and the fact that they're no longer operating shouldn't reduce notability either. --RFBailey (talk) 14:50, 27 April 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.