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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaxonAir[edit]

SaxonAir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This is not an airline, but one of many small air charter companies and FBOs that exist; and there is nothing to suggest notability of this particular company. Looking at the first deletion discussion, the keeps seem to have been based on the presence of external sources, but these are by-and-large directory listings. In addition to the refs in the article there is one mention of the company in a Norwich Airport media release about Klyne Aviation buying the company, but I don't think that any of these confer notability. This appears to be just another example of a COI User creating an article to promote the company with which s/he is associated. The article creator's edits are almost exclusively to this article or in adding info about the company to other articles, almost all of which have been reverted.YSSYguy (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

formatting change Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Three reliable non-directory sources in article (although one has a broken link, it looks as though the article would also have appeared in the magazine's print edition) seems like enough to justify it to me. JulesH (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The refs cited do seem to establish notability to the extent required of WP:CORP. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep COI "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias" in this case I believe means this page needs more eyes on it. I dont believe deletion is the solution, cited refs seem sufficient. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Transportation companies are public amenities and articles on them are apt to be of use to Wikipedia visitors. There is something to be said for giving the people what they need. Certain worth having a couple sets of eyes with no connection to the company giving the piece the once-over, however. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "apt to be of use to Wikipedia visitors" is not notability. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• True enough, but a Articles usefulness "can can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be sure to look up WP the next time I want to blow six month's pay on hiring a private jet. YSSYguy (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - given the references, just squeaks by on notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2010 (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.