Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Flight Charters


 * 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. Sr13 is almost  Singu  larity  07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

New Flight Charters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP miserably. This 'airline' owns no aircraft, it is simply a go between between customer and the aircraft owner - millions of those. Searches reveal nothing which establishes the notability of this non-airline. Also nominate under WP:SPAM, the article creator is clearly listed in the infobox. Should be speedy delete, but my csd was removed. Russavia 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not a single secondary source. I agree, it's borderline spam and there's an apparent WP:COI issue as well.  I looked for sources on my own, but could find none.   Douglasmtaylor   T / C  22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy - G11; spammy, and far from WP:CORP. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Reads promotionally. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * not speedy --it clearly isnt obvious to all of us--I removed the speedy once and it should not have been put back. I think it's a weak keep, if sources can be found, and the point of an afd is to discuss the matter and let them be found.  as an apparently notable company -- that it is a consolidator rather than an actual operator does not necessarily make it non-notable. DGG (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't you think that as the nominator that I checked for reliable, non-trival sources which would have given this company some degree of notability before putting it up for Afd? --Russavia 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, it fits in with WP:CSD as being blatant advertising. I would also point you to this article which is also up for nomination again, and which was marked speedy, and had that removed by yourself, even though I mentioned in the Afd that this page  has been protected to prevent creation afer the creator created once again after being deleted. Why is it that others can see this yet you can't? --Russavia 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. It gets a lotta Ghits - over 600-, but only one real review by a San Diego business journal in the top few dozens.  Marginal notability. Bearian 00:40, 7 August 2007 (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.