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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme[edit]

This first came to my attention when User:Aviationstrategies requested an unblock due to the promotional nature of their username (and the fact that they refer to themselves as "we" and call this "our page"). When it was created in June, it was tagged as copyvio, but after some discussion on user's talk page, it looks like it was left to lie. However, on inspection it appeared to still contain massive chunks of the IAP website [1]. I removed all the sections that were straight copies and attempted to wittle it down to a usable article. There's not much left now, and now I come to look at it – is it even notable? Key facts: Airport Management Professional Accreditation Programme leads to a International Airport Professional certification, which is administered by Aviation Strategies International. There are various redirects which would have to be deleted, if that is the outcome of the case at hand.

Undecided as nom. – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim to "independent" notice offered by the article is a story in "Centerlines, Airport's Council International's Official quartely magazine". This is not really independent; it is apparently published by a parent or related organization, and even if it were independent it's still a publication of limited readership and circulation, and does not make the grade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This looks like a professional qualification. If so, it is (presumably) notable. Even if the only sourece is a house mag, it should not be deleted: it should be tagged for independent sources. However, I am going on appearances: if some one, who really knows, asserts that this is an over-hyped minor qualification with little general acceptance, my view would be different. Nevertheless, there is a conflect of interest with ther creator. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads too much like spam and searches on portions of the text include direct copies of text on other sites like this one. So even if notable, which has not been established, it also may have copyright violation issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that was after I culled 6kb of copyvio. Sheesh. I'm coming down on the side of delete now. Not least because I still haven't found anything to say its notable. And the original creator even seems to have lost interest now after I kindly unblocked them. :) – B.hotep •talk• 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be particularly notable and the article doesnt say what the programme actual is, I presume it is just a course with a certificate at the end although is doesnt actually say that. May be worth a one-liner in an article about professional qualifications in aviation (if it is a recognised qualification) or in the ACI article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 6 August 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.