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 speedy keep. This is under policy; nominator stated that the article can be kept now and there are no substantial arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zakavia[edit]

Zakavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

AfDed as per WP:NCORP. Unsourced article. Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, this airline has not been important enough to get a stand-alone alone Wikipedia article, as it was only around for two years. Of course, it is quite difficult to find reliable in-depth sources for a 1920s company (which are somewhat necessary for WP:CORP), but I think it is safe to assume that these just do not exist because (per the talk page) User:Russavia did not succeed in finding them in nearly six years. --FoxyOrange (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I expanded the article and added sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the view of Ymblanter's recent edit (many thanks to this great work!), I have to revoke my earlier comment, and go for speedy keep instead, as in my opinion all concerns that had led to this AfD discussion have been dissolved. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excellent work by Ymblanter improviing the article. The nominator is reminded that a lack of sources isn't a reason to delete. (Also, for future reference re: the struck Delete !vote above, WP:NTEMP, WP:NEGLECT) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate the article because of a lack of sources, I just mentioned that the article had no sources when it was nominated. My main concern was notability. Nevertheless, WP:VERIFY is a policy to be followed at every article, including the new ones. Following the discussion above, I agree that Ymblanter (talk · contribs) improved the article and that it should be kept now, yet it is in need of a serious expansion. Just a curious thing: this is not the first time an article I've nominated gets improved by someone else (mainly by the addition of references) and it's eventually kept. Is it so difficult to create sourced articles?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; just wanted to be sure nobody drove by and took it the wrong way. As for improvement, I think the main thing is there's simply so many articles that some have to "have attention drawn to them" for somebody to go "oh, I can do this". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 13 February 2013 (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.