Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-TEC Corporation
- 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. Arkyan • (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
S-TEC Corporation[edit]
- S-TEC Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unable to find any WP:RS that indicate that this company passes WP:CORP. Leuko 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created to provide information on S-TEC which is a well known entity in General Aviation. The only previous article with mention of S-TEC was about the Daewoo S-TEC engine. The parent company, Meggitt has an article in Wikipedia. I feel it is appropriate to create this article to demonstrate that there is more than just an engine called S-TEC. Handment 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Merge It is possible to include this information as a subheading of Meggitt. Handment 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added a reference from an independent journal, Aviation Consumer, which confirms S-TEC's dominant market position. -- Black Falcon 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the journal source noted above, I have added a news source, bringing the total to 4. -- Black Falcon 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Two of the 4 are independent and substantial.DGG 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One non-independent reference is used to site where the company is located. The company asserts its location is as published, why would this be disputed? [1] is one link of hundreds from the FAA that state the company's location (with more unrleated material). The other non-independent link is to support that the company is a part of the bigger company. Both company's websites make this claim. Why should this be disputed? Neither reference could be deemed independent.63.64.214.151 14:00, 30 March 2007 (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.