Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency Aeromedical Service

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Aeromedical Service

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

Non-notable service. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable as the only emergency air ambulance service in Ireland. --Kwekubo (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Kwekubo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Is there a corresponding Irish Wiki article? Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not clear from the nom what notability criteria is being applied, but to my understanding the subject would seem to meet the GNG and ORG criteria. Relative to the GNG criteria, WP:SIGCOV would seem to be met as there is seemingly non-trivial coverage across various independent outlets and a broad span of dates that deal with the subject specifically. For example, the following sources represent non-trivial coverage (these are not "passing references" in which the subject is mentioned fleetingly, but coverage on and about the subject itself): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. On ORG, these types of sources would seem to equally demonstrate the WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND criteria for sources establishing ORG notability. Perhaps additional sources of this type might be added to the article. However that notwithstanding, I'm not sure I am following what NN criteria is unmet here.... Guliolopez (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in RS has been found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with all points above - notable and RS provided. GeneralBelly (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily referenced to reliable sources, the article meets both GNG and the ORG specific SNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, with a large number of reliable sources related to the topic. For example, [9][10][11]. Omni Flames (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous sources available, article reflects this, thanks to additions by above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2016 (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.