Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Air

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. Only one serious "keep", by YSSYguy, and that's not enough.  Sandstein  18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Serene Air

Serene Air (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. This is an airline that is not yet certified to fly, much less has any scheduled flights. It may well be notable in the future, but for now what it has is announced intents and a plane order. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any reason this is notable yet. After the airline starts operating, then I think there might be (some) reason for an article, but not yet. Furthermore, the official website says "Coming Soon." Thegreatgrabber (talk) ^contribs 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I have created this page so it may be a bit biased but my argument is that the airline will start flying by 1st November 2016 which is less than a month away. It is better to keep the page than to delete it and remake it after 15 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiraz.s10 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Shiraz.s10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• Keep Why not keep the page.. The Air line fleet is already seen and in a few days will start its operations. I dont also see any reason that this page should be deleted, rather the page should have all the required things on it. like the logo of the company, first 737-800 plane which is parked at Ranton atm and may be pictures of the officials and staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.34.178 (talk)

— 2.50.34.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep -- Civil Aviation Authority has already granted Serene Air a licence so this a carrier soon commencing its operation. I've added references to the page so I hope now the airline merits an entry. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Merely being in business does not automatically make a company, even an airline, notable. This was a page created by the airline (note how while just one editor had worked on it, the article was referring to the airline as "us" to promote a business that they are not actually in yet, much less notable for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the page was created by the staff of the airline but if it is, then need to be re-written and keep a close eye so that no promotional material be added here. I guess the creator copied the text referring to "us" from airlines official FB page. And no just plane orders, the airlines has already acquired three aircrafts according to a news report and we can see the evidence in the form of images. --Saqib (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Admin assistance needed The user who voted as User:Junaid Faisal was in fact an IP user. It also has an incorrect timestamp. Nordic Nightfury 12:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALLING, there's no proof that this company is or will be notable. Just because a business exists doesn't mean we automatically make and keep an article about it. Valeince (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Userfy or otherwise hold for four days to see if it really dies fly. I feel like we are being Rickrolled. If not, Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are articles of reasonable length about the airline on the websites of several of Pakistan's leading media companies and this airline appears to be a fairly big deal in the context of that country and its air travel industry. YSSYguy (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete for or at least Draft because, although it's expected this may in fact become an established airline, we cannot guarantee it as a fact therefore delete until there's the actual substance needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The significant coverage already exists, with analysis as well as straight reportage. Given the small size of the Pakistani airline industry, even if the airline fails there will likely be significant coverage as a result. YSSYguy (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Im sorry but 4 sources doesn't say "significant coverage" to me, there is no objection for re-creation when more info comes to light. My deletion is per WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL on how this will be notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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.