Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kona Shuttle

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 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Shuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems notable enough, however, sourcing is not the besr. Also, funnily enough, I fly this airline! Pyramids09 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Pyramids09, can you point to any references that meet NCORP? That's how we establish notability and I can't find any. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apart from not being an airline but just a branded or named charter flight it is not that noteworthy for a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2021 (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.