Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeromed


 * 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. basically per WP:CORP failure JForget  22:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aeromed

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a non-notable company providing aero-medical services in Puerto Rico. Article reads very heavy on advertising and very light on notability. Frmatt (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions.  -- Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added a reference. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote the article so I'm not going to vote for it to be deleted...sort of like you'd expect Barack Obama to have voted for himself during election day, not for the republican loser! Hehe, wink*. But also because then you'd have to delete several other airline-related articles...like Heli Air Monaco, for example. Sex God AntonioMartin (what do you mean??) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC
 * Comment I have actually just expanded Heli Air Monaco a little bit, and have added sources to the article. This is what the current article needs to demonstrate notability. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep it It might not be A big company but that doesn't mean it should be thrown out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.111.186 (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and as for the comment by Antonio Martin, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-- Coldplay   Expert  01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of non-trivial coverage despite Eastmain's work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no significant coverage of the subject, and the only reference in the article is in relation to another organisation, so I am somewhat miffed as to why it is being used in this article. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Part 135 carriers are generally not notable -Drdisque (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.