Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AviaAM Leasing


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

AviaAM Leasing

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not a single ref passes WP:SIRS. Before is a similar message.  scope_creep Talk  23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation,  and Lithuania. Owen&times;  &#9742;  00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Weak Delete is notable as an aviation company; while the sourcing is not the best here, a random Google search, especially in local newspapers or languages, shows pretty much coverage in reliable national media. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What coverage would that be exactly? I've already a pretty comprehensive WP:BEFORE and I didn't see much at all. Have you got three per WP:THREE that can prove its notable.   scope_creep Talk  19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP THREE is an essay, not a rule/guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:THREE was cofirmed as best practice per consensus last summer. If you have evidence post it up. I don't think you do. I do think your a UPE though.   scope_creep Talk  09:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please send me that discussion, I would be glad to see it. I recently found out, that essays are not good way to discuss, that's why I do not rely on them. Also, don't blame in UPE me, it's not nice :) but I do see why you think so, as I am not for Deletion. You wanna change my mind? :) I may change the vote, but don't want to mess around with Keep Delete. However, I do agree with the decision to delete the page - I did research more to prove my claim and found very little (regarding reliable sources). BoraVoro (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak Delete - agree with @Scope creep and don't object WP:THREE rule to be applied here. BoraVoro (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Rather astonishingly, for a company that apparently operates 10 A320s, it is surprisingly bereft of RS, though the article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed in a way that creates an initial appearance to the contrary. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2024 (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.