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. Necessary reliable sources to pass GNG have been established during the discussion. (Note: Let's try to open AFDs with an actual policy based, easily understood reason in the opening statement please.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WheelTug[edit]

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

As for the adjacent AfD., though there seems to be a recent press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate, maybe provide a rationale for deletion? YSSYguy (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep. A rationale for deletion is not provided; referring to another AfD's rationaile is not valid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this wasn't SK'd, changing to a traditional keep per YSSguy's finding of sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, sources are all PR, and speedy keeping would be pointless bureaucracy since I understand just fine what the nom is saying. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well my mind-reading abilities are obviously on the blink, because I don't know what the reason/s for deletion is/are. At any rate, my !vote is to keep - it is very easy to find significant coverage of the subject, thus it passes the WP:GNG. Such coverage hasn't made its way into the article, but that's just a sign of lack of editing, not lack of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@YSSYguy:Where are you finding third party coverage? I found nothing on Gbooks, and the only Gnews hits are the press releases already in the article and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am talking about old-school paper media; magazines covering airlines, airport ground handling, aircraft maintenance and airports that I read while I am eating my lunch, in which collectively the subject is mentioned several times a year. YSSYguy (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rationale and current status of the article aside, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage for this subject (e.g., [1][2][3][4][5]). Gong show 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent subject Borealis Exploration Limited. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient good sources to even expand the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, sources are all PR MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Gongshow found, there's [6], [7], [8],[9] and [10] to refute that. YSSYguy (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2013 (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.