Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination One

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. MBisanz talk 14:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination One

Destination One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Defunct airline that existed for less than a year. The first external link (to the official site) is dead, and the second is completely unrelated. Mr.Z-man 07:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely unsourced, non notable defunct airline. --Banime (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. I added four new references, and replaced the external links with links to the corresponding archived pages at the Internet Archive. --Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the extra sources added and they help but the article needs a lot of improvement. I tried many variations of searching for Destination One on google and found one blog and one forum post about the airline itself. Obviously keeping WP:GOOGLEHITS in mind, this is still a bad sign for the article. The newspapers that are cited contain about 500 words about the airline. I don't think it has siginificant nontrivial coverage in secondary sources to be notable. For now I stick by my delete. --Banime (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Banime, newsworthy for a week does not equal notable forever. Mr.Z-man 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see that it was ever notable. Acccording to the article it operated charter flights with a single airplane. All scheduled airlines are notable, but I think this is firmly below the bar. I remember making an argument for minute charter airlines such as this one in my early days here, and learning better from the responses. DGG (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are arguments to be made for AK and HI charters, as they represent the equivalent of roads in many ways. Local charter which haven't otherwise seen significant coverage aren't otherwise included (usually). Protonk (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It wasn't a charter airline. It used a charter airline rather than operating flights with its own employees. It sold tickets and published a timetable just like a scheduled carrier.--Eastmain (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does that make it stronger, or weaker? It sounds then like it was just a booking service, not engaging in any physical operation of even a single airplane. DGG (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2008 (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.