Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Medical International


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Remote Medical International

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, appears to be a advertsing beard under the guise if a well sourced article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Assuming good faith on the motivation for creation, but I am not seeing anything close to adequate secondary sources on Google. Jminthorne (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Was going to say keep, but unfortunately this published reference is rather promotional, and another spammy sentence is backed up by this source. So, a good mix of advertising and notability problems coalesce. Minima  c  ( talk ) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rescue Honestly, I see the concerns of the proposer and others, but I think that deleting would be rather trigger-happy. Sources do exist, even if they aren't perfect, more notable ones can probably be found, and the article re-written to be less promotional. I have also nominated this article with the Article Rescue Squadron. In short, I think an AfD is unnecessary at this time. The article was only created yesterday, I think proposing it for deletion 3 minutes after creation for such correctable issues is a bit ridiculous. I cite WP:DEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE. If you still disagree, I suggest WP:INCUBATE as a constructive alternative to flat out deletion. --Pstanton (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Pstanton (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. Its insane that someone would nominate something after only three minutes.  Discuss things on the talk page!  A quick click of the Google news search link at the top of the AFD shows 11 results.  Dispatch  gives ample coverage.  Summaries of the rest seem notable enough.  Seattle Times mentions how the United States military hires them for training! Google news search BEFORE you nominate something.   D r e a m Focus  07:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I found this news story about their training program in a national newspaper., and this..... And that was just by clicking into a news search through a button on the rescue template box. --Pstanton (talk) 07:55, 4 June 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.