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The result was withdrawn - Unless others wanted to comment, I suppose this is more acceptable now. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BackpackersXpress[edit]

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

I would've let this article pass by if it wasn't that there's not much aside from the current information and because it was never successful, this would be best mentioned elsewhere but this is an orphan; my most fruitful searches were this, this, this, this and this. Pinging author Ardfern for comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am tired of articles for minor proposals which come to nothing. Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and therefore notability is established. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Back in the day" there existed the notion that airlines are intrinsically notable, and Ardfern created dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about airlines. Since then, via multiple AfDs, a consensus has emerged that airlines must satisfy WP:CORP as other companies must, and this doesn't. YSSYguy (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There's probably a case to keep this as a monument to what appears to have been a seriously bad business idea (leasing two 747s to fly backpackers around - what could possibly go wrong?), but WP:CORP isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a bit more on this company from Googling it. The online sourcing is on certainly on thin side, but as there are likely to be more resources available through newspaper databases and the like given the eccentricity/foolhardiness of the business idea I'm switching to ~~very weak keep~~ @SwisterTwister: @Shiftchange: @YSSYguy: @GeorgeGriffiths:, what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm between still delete as it seems better to mention somewhere else and weak keep as mentioned (the sources are nice although thin). SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to add quite a bit more after looking in the Factiva database, and think that WP:CORP is now met as the coverage was sustained and reasonably detailed over the life of the firm and it's received a bit of subsequent coverage, so I'm changing again to outright Keep Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the substantial coverage found by Nick-D (talk · contribs) who has done excellent work on the article. There is substantial coverage of the proposed airline in The Australian Financial Review, Travel Trade Gazette, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Sydney Morning Herald. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:CORP) is clearly met. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (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.