Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AvJet Routing

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AvJet Routing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:ORG. Article contains no assertion of notability of the company, and appears to be written as a promo piece by User:AvJet Routing. I have cut down the promotional aspects a bit, but the article still fails to assert notability. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There seems to some stuff out there. http://www.ainonline.com/social-tags/avjet-routing, enough to just make it notable. However the owners/runners of this company should not edit this article due to their WP:COI and previous use as an advert.Martin451 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly can find it exists in online lists and directories but nothing to show it is of any note. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability--it think it would have been a valid A7 for lack of even an indication of importance. About half the items in the list given above do not mention the company, and the ones that do are routine notice or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.