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. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 08:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FlightNetwork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An insignificant business that is not noteworthy, the information on the page are inaccurate, and the citations are misleading and are mostly unrelated articles linked from the web, and a couple of mentions of the company from obscure sources. The history shows that page has been managed and edited by people most likely affiliated with the company with NO other contributions, and one angry customer Powermugu (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (draft/userfy if wished) - I have to say I'm amused Powermugu put both a PROD and AfD so soon after each other, maybe to ensure a nomination happened if the PROD was removed or changed their mind for additional consensus for weight? My searches found mostly press releases including "second most used travel website" but these are supported by press releases and not good news coverage, here and here. This article was started last year and is at least neat and sourced but maybe we'll hold aside a little bit for potential better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Tomlinson, Kathy (2010-05-18). "Online travel site sells unavailable flights: FlightNetwork.com gives B.C. customers refunds months after trip disruption". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2015-07-24. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  2. Atkinson, Cathryn (2011-04-27). "Naman Budhdeo, 38: helps people make online travel plans". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-07-24. Retrieved 2015-07-24.

     The article notes:

     In 2005, Naman Budhdeo started online travel agency FlightNetwork.com with a single part-time employee.

     ...

     But the company flew far higher than he expected. FlightNetwork.com is now the second largest online travel agency in Canada, with five per cent of the market share. Mr. Budhdeo says this is due to their investment in online advertising, embracing the new media business model wholeheartedly.

     ...

     The company has made it into the Profit 100/Profit 200 list for last two years, with gross sales of $250-million, representing 850-per-cent growth in five years. Today, there are 260 employees in four offices, two in Mississauga and Oakville, and two more in India.

  3. Perkins, Ed (2011-07-26). "Ed Perkins: Buy a Ticket, Price Drops - Can You Recoup?". SmarterTravel. TripAdvisor. Archived from the original on 2015-07-24. Retrieved 2015-07-24.
  4. Kirby, Jason (2010-12-05). "Sky-high airfares: Airlines are booming again and that's bad news for holiday fliers". Maclean's. Archived from the original on 2015-07-24. Retrieved 2015-07-24.

     The article notes:

     But Maclean's asked FlightNetwork.com, Canada's second-largest online travel site, to sift through its historical data to see how fares have changed.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FlightNetwork to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep- I'm generally not comfortable giving every company an article based on the marketing churn, puff pieces, and name drops that every company gets. But the interview with the founder is enough to convince me in this case. Reyk _YO! 13:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the arguments of Cunard. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 15:40, 25 July 2015 (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.