Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AB Aerotransport

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. Near unanimous agreement that this passes WP:GNG. Several third-party reliable sources found. Closed. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AB Aerotransport

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Cannot find third-party coverage for the airline. The article has been unsourced since 2009.

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a historic airline that is clearly an important part of the history of Swedish aviation is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Swedish article mentions several sources that seem very reasonable, like Utredning om AB Aerotransport, a 140 pages government report about ABA from 1947, and the 20 pages chapter Från Junkers till Cloudmaster : ABA fyller 70! in Flyg (Vällingby) from 1994. I don't have immediate access to these, as they're printed publications, but I've started adding basic referencing using Lars Fältings 1995 article Högtflygande planer i debatten om Arlanda 1946 which presents the basic outlines of the history of ABA. The Swedish article mentions other sources. There seems to be more than enough to satisfy our standards. /Julle (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well writen, poorly sourced article, on a notable topic, added some refs. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep. Major flag carrier that was merged into SAS on SAS's creation. A cursory google-books search shows plenty of possible sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, looks to me to be passing mentions --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize we're discussing the flag carrier (the main airliner) of Sweden for 20 some odd years? (prior to being merged to SAS - the pan-Scandinavian airline). There are lots of sources (either with the full name, or ABA). Yes - many of them are passing (as with any company) - however I'm fairly certain some of them are in depth. Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is some third-party coverage, all from GBooks; they're all snippet views, so it's difficult to discern the depth of coverage in them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the various sources mentioned above, I believe WP:GNG is satisfied. Further, in principle, being the flag carrier of Sweden and later merging into SAS makes the airline an important and relevant part of Swedish aviation history. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:46, 13 February 2019 (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.