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The result was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IndUS Aviation (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)

No 3rd party refs, latest news on their own website is 2 years ago. There's a continual WP:PUFFERY problem where some AMAZING CLAIMS are being re-added over and over by an anon IP, but still no attempt to address the basic issues of WP:N and WP:RS, despite past tagging. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. Refs have now been added, page protection should deal with the other issue. Thanks to those who put work in to improve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article itself obviously needs work, but because it has entries in reliable sources such as Janes All the World's Aircraft it clearly meets Wikipedia's Notability standards as a subject. Recommend keep and rewrite. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above (GregJackP (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep notable as a manufacturer and designer of aircraft, just really needs a tidy up and some better referencing which is now being done by the aircraft project. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an extant company producing FAA certified aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per all "keeps" above. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first I even heard of this article. I can't help wonder why someone didn't ping WPAIR before the IP became this disruptive. There are other ways to handle them besides AFDing the article, which usually does little to deter such users bent on pushing their own POV. - BilCat (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking etc. isn't much use against a morphing IP. The AfD here was for a separate issue, the fact that there really was nothing on the article to distinguish it from a brass-plate company with nothing more to it than a website. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Ahunt and Nimbus. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per all "keeps" above. There's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed relatively easily. Roger (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Ahunt et al --Rlandmann (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does anyone yet have a single WP:RS showing that IndUS aviation have built and shipped a single aircraft?

So far we have a bunch of WP:CRYSTAL about what their future plans are (inc the Flight references), but nothing that demonstrates they've actually done any of it. The Thorp 211 article has a photo on it captioned as IndUS-built, yet the FAA reg disagrees (they reckon it's a home-built). There are also plenty of claims being made (the anon IP with the vanity posts) about a supposed diesel engine, but still nothing that demonstrates the actuality of these plans. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA register has eighteen T-211 Thorpedo's listed as Indus-built. I have also added in a ref for the diesel version. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That information is incredibly easy to find. They currently have 28 aircraft registered in the USA alone. I have added it to the article. The photo caption has been corrected to make it more precise - that aircraft is an amateur-built but it was built by IndUS's owner and used as a demo aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 February 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.