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 delete. No prejustice against recreation as a redirect The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Demolition[edit]

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

No reliable source coverage to establish notability per WP:CORP. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the occasional directory, or specialist magazine mention, I can't find anything to show it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - I cannot find any reliable, third-party coverage of this company. It's too bad we don't have an article on aircraft recycling to merge this with, in the meantime I suggest a redirect to Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculous use of references. Another single article editor, blatant self promotion. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:32, 22 February 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.