Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privilege Jet Airlines
Source: 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 delete. Wizardman 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Privilege Jet Airlines
- Privilege Jet Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Small charter airline. Does not meet the notability standards at
Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines. A7 speedy was reversed, so it's AFD time. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Speedy delete Per A7, so nominated (I didn't see a previous speedy nom in the history) ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the previous A7 CSD on these three, the admin who reversed the A7 speedy did not restore the actual CSD tag edits. I'm the first admin, who executed the original A7 speedy that was then reversed. I left these alone for a while, to give the original nominator time to AFD or DRV the situation. Today I found them again, and AFDed them myself. Given that they have been A7 deleted by one admin (me), and restored by another, and the second has stood by his point that they are not A7 qualified, I really do not think it wise for them to be A7ed again, short of DRVing the whole thing. AFD seemed easier at this point than a DRV fight over the original A7/reversal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I've just now restored the original CSD edits, so the full history can be seen. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also User talk:TexasAndroid#Airline notablility for some previous discussion on this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the previous A7 CSD on these three, the admin who reversed the A7 speedy did not restore the actual CSD tag edits. I'm the first admin, who executed the original A7 speedy that was then reversed. I left these alone for a while, to give the original nominator time to AFD or DRV the situation. Today I found them again, and AFDed them myself. Given that they have been A7 deleted by one admin (me), and restored by another, and the second has stood by his point that they are not A7 qualified, I really do not think it wise for them to be A7ed again, short of DRVing the whole thing. AFD seemed easier at this point than a DRV fight over the original A7/reversal. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined but weak delete - Since this has been so convoluted, I'm declining speedy and am going to let this AfD ride out. In general, I would !vote "delete" on a charter airline like this, but as they are one of the few remaining -500 operators, there might be some notability associated. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Website is "under construction" and a list of email addresses. Has one airplane, no listed IATA, ICAO or callsign. No media sources given in article, and the ch-aviation.ch link given in the article lists their aircraft as stored. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No ICAO or IATA code and appears to have only operated a few ad-hoc charters and the one tristar aircraft is now leased out to an airline in the Central African Republic. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please be aware of the status of WP:AVIMOS#NOTE is, as I can tell, an essay that is the closest thing we have to a current guideline.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (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.