Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabair

: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 (NAC) RMHED (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Cabair]]=

:{{la|Cabair}} ([{{fullurl:Cabair|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabair}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

While a google search is challenging due to false positives resulting from the abbreviation for Civil Aeronautics Board, there's no evidence this group of schools is notable per WP:ORG. StarM 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Plenty of sources on [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=Cabair+schools Google News Archive], such as [http://www.independent.co.uk/student/magazines/flight-paths-become-a-pilot-427092.html this], [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/02/05/1581/flexible-flying.html this], [http://www.independent.co.uk/student/magazines/choose-the-right-flight-training-organisation-to-suit-your-career-path-451025.html this], and [http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/05/219184/dubai-2007-preparing-to-fly.html this]. Some of these sources are only passing mentions, but [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1061353.ece this one] from The Times is an in-depth progress report about Cabair. These sources are enough for this group of schools passes WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It's more notable than many high schools and other colleges here. Since it's a commercial concern though, it should pass WP:COMPANY which it does with a significant article in a reliable secondary source. --Triwbe (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cunard has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (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.