Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skypatrol LLC


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Skypatrol LLC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Forbes source is the only source providing substantial independent coverage of the subject. However although it's written by a Forbes member of staff, I think it still falls under the contributors part of the site, which lacks editorial control. I haven't been able to find other high-quality sources and as such WP:CORP doesn't appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as my searches and the current listed are not significant and outstanding combined, here, here and here. SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability threshold met with Forbes peice along with others mentioned here and in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now looking at that link, it seems to only be mentioned twice (not exactly solid enough to save it) albeit Forbes is a good source. Coverage for the company seems to be marginal and minimal at most. SwisterTwister   talk  06:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The Forbes article in on a very minor point and is enough at most to support a single sentence in the middle of the article, not enough to provide notability for the subject as a whose. The same thing can be said about refs 8. 9, and 10.  DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Delete - fails WP:ORG - they have a little notoriety from the stalking incident and the litigation but neither is of the kind of substance that makes this company encyclopedia-worthy. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there something specific in WP:NOT than makes this subject not encyclopedia-worthy? Notable companies are encyclopedia-worthy and I don't think we should be discriminating based on the reason for their notability. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG is the relevant point. Can you elaborate on which sources you meant by "others"? More than a single piece in Forbes is necessary to demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note. Looking more closely I notice I was wrong about the reliability of Forbes in this instance as I now realise that all their articles are under /sites/ rather than just the non-RS blogs. This doesn't change my opinion of notability though as that is still a single source and the company is not the main subject of the article either. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2015 (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.