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.
Delete shows no notability whatsoever. Sorry for my faux pas. Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there seems to be non-trivial articles from independent, 3rd party sources on the page. The publications aren't exactly the New York Times, but they seem to be important in the air industry. Also "saxonair" has 2730 ghits (although that by itself might not be that meaningful). In the end, it's not Delta Airlines, but it seems notable enough to make the grade here. SMSpivey (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent-sized company, article has sources (needs more sources, but at least it has some), and Google search turns up lots of results in prominent places. Looks like a legit company to me. Politizertalk/contribs 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N unless those sources in the article aren't reliable/independent for some reason. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Young yet notable in the UK Avaiation industry, citing more references and articles than many others in the same industry in the same geographical area. A genuine entry. Also, articles from the BBC (British Broadcating Corporation) and EBAN (European Business Air News) add to notability. The BBC's on a par with CNN etc. PA2858453 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2009 (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.