Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Training Europe
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 15. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Sandstein 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flight Training Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Page was prodded (by me) and deleted. DRV restored it, but I still think it isn't a notable corporation. No improvements were made to the article since it was restored. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent third-party reliable sources at all. Fails WP:N. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. - Raj Krishnamurthy (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nobody of Consequence seems to have done no research of consequence. Reliable third-party sources do exist, they just haven't been added to the article. For example: [1] and [2]. Mark as unreferenced if you like, but this a lack of references is generally a reason for improvement, not deletion. U$er (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you capable of engaging in AFD discussions without making snide personal attacks? Read comments below. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Those are two copies of the same press release. One press release isn't enough to justify an article. For future deciders, I did also run a search through Lexis Nexis and turned up nothing there. Vickser (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if those weren't press releases, all it says is that they are buying a 737 simulator. Is this sufficient for a Wikipedia article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to discuss this over at WP:AVIATION and see if they have any criteria to help justify a flight school article. Getting one advanced simulator does not sway me to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asking rhetorically; my answer is "no, having an advanced simulator is not sufficient." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to discuss this over at WP:AVIATION and see if they have any criteria to help justify a flight school article. Getting one advanced simulator does not sway me to keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if those weren't press releases, all it says is that they are buying a 737 simulator. Is this sufficient for a Wikipedia article? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, company isn't noteworthy. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply put, it fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2008 (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.