Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia Pacific Flight Training


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Asia Pacific Flight Training

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable flight school. Extensive searches for sources turned up only school website, school Facebook page, school press releases and non-notable listings in directories, etc. Article is essentially promotional spam. Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom, no sign of notability from the thousands of other flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure what the nominator's extensive searches for sources entailed, but I was able to uncover a heap of coverage in reliable sources in about two minutes. How about the first accredited Malaysian private flight school, opened by the responsible Cabinet Minister? . Very easily meets the threshhold of significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage is of an ongoing nature - regular news reports over the four or so years since it has opened. A pretty lay-down case in my view.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yup I found those - the school has an active PR machine and those are just reprinted school press releases, no actual notable coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Star and the New Straits Times are Malaysia's two largest newspapers. They do not reptrint press releases. Do you have any basis for saying that other than guesswork? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that you can add some reliable refs to establish notability then please do go ahead and do so. The AFD process results in articles either being improved or deleted and that makes for a better encyclopedia either way. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Merge useable content into Sultan Ismail Petra Airport article. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There have been a few articles of this type deleted in recent months, all for the same reason; they are run-of-the-mill flying schools with nothing to distinguish them from the thousands of other such schools around the world, except someone involved with each school (in at least one case the owner of the school) thought it would be a good idea to start a Wikipedia article. YSSYguy (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been clearly demonstrated above by Mkativerata. Merging to the airport article certainly doesn't seem to be a good idea, as, as far as I can see, the relationship between the two is that of customer and supplier, which would be a very strange reason for merging. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (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.