Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flamingo Air (Cincinnati airline)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Flamingo Air (Cincinnati airline)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not really notable and having only one small single-engined aircraft is pretty insignificant, using sex to advertise is unusual but a bit of a one off publicity event with no long term notability MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of secondary source coverage -- in multiple languages all over the world -- in search for "Flamingo Air" and "Cincinnati", here: . Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, it's an advertising gimmick, but it's attracted enough coverage in secondary sources to be notable. Lagrange613 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Being a sex-friendly flight school does not qualify.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote it. Antonio I hate deletion votes Martin loser talk (19:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment due respect but I dont think being created by yourself makes it notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't say that makes it notable, just that that is the reason I vote for it to be kept. I always vote keep on articles I created. To me, it's sort of like the President voting for himself in the elections. Antonio Chick Magnet Martin (loser talk) 21:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great! Your lack of objectivity borders WP:NPOV issues.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article itself is pretty pathetic but it appears that this is a legit, if gimicky, small charter airline. This article seems to indicate they're planning on adding (or have added; the article is dated) charter flights to Chicago and Detroit. Even if it still hasn't expanded that service yet (WP:ORACLES), it remains a small, 20-year-old, sight-seeing tour company and flight school. That being said, the article does need serious work and cleanup -- and the 'defunct airlines' category should either be cited in the article or removed. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (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.