Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kam Air


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 12:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Kam Air

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination on behalf of the company who have requested deletion of the article via WP:OTRS. Their comment: "We have noticed that information published on your website about our airline are not accurate, as a result we would like to request removal of the following pages [sic] from your website immediately." --Errant (chat!) 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Airlines are held to be notable. Issues with the article should be flagged up on the talk page with links to reliable sources that show information is inaccurate, so that any errors can be corrected. I suspect that the main cause of this request is the existence of the "Accidents and incidents" section. Fact of life, airlines suffer accidents from time to time, those accidents get reported, it is proper to include them in an airline article. Just because the company doesn't like this does not give them the right to dictate to Wikipedia what articles it can and can't host. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW if you get a chance to give the articles a quick look over then that would be handy. --Errant (chat!) 14:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. They cannot govern Wikipedia's contents. Why don't they go and expand/modify the article for themselves instead of requesting deletion?--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep airline meets notability requirements any content issues can be dealt with on article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes, it's easy to see why the airline might not want this to be seen, but the information is notable and properly-sourced, and the airline is not a private individual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - airline is notable and information is publically available. Wikipedia is not censored. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The airline is notable. The information in the article is properly sourced and independently verifiable. Any weight or balance issues can be fixed through normal editing. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This airline is definitely notable and is pretty well sourced, and I don't see why it should be deleted. I wonder what the airline's reasons are for asking for the article on them to be deleted; it seems weird that an airline would do that.  And Wikipedia is not censored; if airline thinks this article is biased against them, they should explain why on the talk page so that we can help make it not biased.  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The airline is notable.- William 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm surprised wiki are even considering deleting it, they should simply say no, other than that the article itself can be edited and reducted to only contain content thats accurately referenced, maybe become a stub. 116.71.9.56 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why reduce to a stub? There is very little material in the article which is not verified, and nothing contentious is unverified. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2012 (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.