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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyHawaii Airlines[edit]

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

I would think that managing to fly a plane with passengers on it is a reasonable notability requirement for an airline. The "airline" never did. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no rule that companies must be successful to be notable. This subject is a notable flop. Multiple reliable sources, significant as a part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of civil aviation in Hawaii, no valid reason to delete.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You bring up a good point here, that a company doesn't have to be successful to be notable. Of course, there are some companies whose failure makes them all the more notable, for example Enron. —Comp dude¹²³ 04:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes this failure notable? Some investors pulling out? That's never notable, it happens in the business world constantly. The company failed without the fraud, hyped-up claims and scandals that makes other failures notable (eestor and Enron for example) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't temporary, like Hawaiian717 said. You really seem to be pushing your point a little too much. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, it's possible for something to be notable without ever becoming a thing, provided sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:N multiple reliable independent sources covered the company. Also note WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary; once something has been the topic of significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage. FlyHawaii can be viewed in the larger context of a series of failed attempts to break the near-duopoloy in Hawaii for inter-island service held by Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines: Mid Pacific Air, Discovery Airways, Mahalo Air, FlyHawaii, and Mokulele Airlines (with the Embraer 170 jets). FlyHawaii simply failed a little sooner, and it's early failure can be attributed to the imminent arrival of go!, which is a whole other notable topic in its own right because of it's role in the failure of Aloha and legal battles with both Hawaiian and Aloha. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG, and notability is not temporary. As a non-rationale sidenote, it makes me laugh. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying notability is temporary, I'm saying this was never notable in the first place. Airlines aren't notable until they fly. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. It's entirely possible for something to meet WP:GNG without ever taking wing, be it an airline or an aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (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.