Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Ltd.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Ltd.

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

No reason this meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Minor company that made few minor flying contraptions, no references to speak of, except few obscure mentions in niche flying enthusiast works. Leaving aside notability of its products, notability is not inherited, so this entry has to stand on its own. And it clearly fails at that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not really less notable than others in Category:Aircraft manufacturers of Poland. Your terminology of "few minor flying contraptions" isn't neutral. They make VLA/LSA certified aircraft, more notable than paragliders manufacturers in my opinion. They exposed in AERO Friedrichshafen 2016. Small company, but that's the typical VLA manufacturer size. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the article and added three independent third party refs. It now meets notability requirements. In future it would be better to bring these sorts of issues up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft so that they can be fixed rather than wasting time on AfDs. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sourced company that has produced any aircraft that has flown is normally considered notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a properly sourced stub article about a manufacturer of certified aircraft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability and is a viable stub. Samf4u (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would re-name to Aero sp. z o.o. as per legal name. Ltd ending is not a valid/legal trading name. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The company website uses "Aero AT" as its full name, so I was planning on moving the article to that title once the AfD was closed, which could be soon if it keeps "snowing" here. - BilCat (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2017 (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.