Keep, or merge, or something. Swissair was the predecessor of Swiss International Air Lines, and the two articles' complement each other. Ianb 18:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, don't merge. The two entities are sufficiently different to justify different articles. Finlay McWalter | Talk
Merge...something like used to be Swissair and make a paragraph on it. Ilyanep(Talk) 18:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep as separate article. WP currently maintains a number of articles on defunct companies, mostly as historical accounts of what transpired during their existence. There is even a category, Category:Defunct companies, which includes dead companies and current subsidiaries that used to be independent. With seventy years of Swissair existence, this article could retain a lot of historical content that would otherwise just bloat the Swiss International Air Lines article. --Gary D 19:09, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have now rearranged the article a bit to emphasize its historicity. --Gary D 19:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo(Talk)]] 21:39, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
We keep articles on notable dead people, why not notable dead companies? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep as historically significant. Heck, I wrote about the Crusader 101, a toy that's been out of production for nearly forty years and I didn't get called on it. In fact, someone expanded the article a bit. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. - David Gerard 20:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree too. Keep it. -George 28 Jun 2004
Keep. Was national carrier for three-quarters of a century. As famous as KLM, Air France, Lufthansa, etc (Would you put PanAm on VfD??) --Palapala 07:48, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
