Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Air

:{{la|Go Air}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go_Air Stats])

:({{Find sources|Go Air}})

This is a disambiguation page with only one blue link that actually belongs on the page, GoAir. Of the remaining topics, articles do not exist for Fly Go-Air or Go Air (USA), and there is no indication that Go! (airline) is known as "Go Air". There is also a footnote leading to an external link on the page, despite such links being expressly forbidden on disambiguation pages, which only disambiguate Wikipedia, not the entire internet. I would delete this article and redirect the title to the only matching blue link, GoAir. bd2412 T 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. When I type <"Go Air"> at Google the second result I get is for Go!, the Hawaiian airline. And I note that there is already a dab hatnote at Go Air, so I must not be the only one who perceives the potential confusion. I'm also concerned that the recent prod deletion of Fly Go-Air (which I didn't see before it happened) may have been contrary to our usual criteria, since this appears to have been a scheduled airline that actually flew, albeit only once,[http://www.news24.com/Travel/Flights/Fly-Go-Air-opens-for-business-20121031][http://www.theafricanaviationtribune.com/2013/02/south-africa-fly-go-air-gone-bust-after.html] and I have been considering whether to request undeletion of that one. I agree that the reference to Go/Royal American isn't currently in accordance with normal dab standards, although it might be noted that this was an actual scheduled airline[http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/tt8211e.htm][http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9VtjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0WcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4232,3136514&dq=royal-american+viscount&hl=en] and might eventually get a page here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think Google's formulation of a single return carries any weight on this question at all. The fact remains that it is not a title match, and there is no evidence that people generally refer to "Go!" as "Go Air". As to other airlines, if they meet the guidelines for inclusion and an article can be crafted with appropriate references, that is a different matter. bd2412 T 13:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to GoAir ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Air&diff=311992007&oldid=171400409 as it was originally]). Hatnote there can point to Go! (airline). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to GoAir with its existing hatnote which links to the Hawaii airline. PamD 13:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to GoAir There is already an existing hatnote there, all other links are red currently. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to GoAir The other disambiguation mention is relatively unrelated and should if anything be listed at Go. Mkdw^talk 20:47, 25 February 2013 (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.