Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jujutacular (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance[edit]

Angel MedFlight Worldwide Air Ambulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have my doubts about the notability of the company. The references used are basically human interest stories, some of a totally trivial nature--the emphasis put on them in my opinion pretty much amounts to promotionalism.. I would not have accepted it from AfC , but another editor did. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing but press releases in a Google News search. The article provides two human-interest-type stories and a "Denver Business Journal" item which is probably a press release; everything else is self-referential. Not sufficient coverage for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added sufficient coverage for notability. All cited from external reputable sources. The article "Angel MedFlight finds better ways of patient transport" found in the Denver Business Journal was written by one of their reporters. The Denver Business Journal is part of the American City Business Journals, which according to Wikipedia, is an American newspaper chain. The fact that Angel MedFlight was cited for its entrepreneurship and innovations in the air ambulance industry makes it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation geek (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Aviation geek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete I second the deletion motion. Every time I read it, it reads more and more like an advertisement. I agree that it appears that all references appear to be either press releases or articles derived from press releases. Secondly, going through the history of the ariticle it appears that Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers may have been created specifically for this article. Both users have never contributed to any other article on Wikipedia and any time any contraversal information has been added to the article it has been deleted by one of these users. Their edits only occur between noon and 5 pm when the time stamps are adjusted to local time in Phoenix, AZ. I believe the article can be deleted for several different reasons.
  1. . I believe that Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers are "sock puppets"
  2. . The article lacks sufficient nonbiased coverage for notability.
  3. . The article writters have tried to use it to build links to Twitter, Facebook, and other webpages in an effort to create a link wheel.
  4. . Article is written for Advertising and Spam
  5. . Article is most likely written by either Angel Medflight Worldwide Air Ambulance or person/company contracted by Angel Medflight.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep The references are NOT all press releases as stated. At least a dozen references have been added that are from reputable news sources, i.e. newspapers, television reports and business journals. Research shows these cited news stories were not written by company personnel or by persons contracted by the company in question, but by journalists. To rebut the previous Delete comments point by point:
  1. . Accusations of "sock puppets" are irrelevant. Furthermore, I call into question who the sock puppet is here. There is no record of a user page for Icarus1980 or previous postings.
  2. . There are obvious examples of non-biased coverage. The article lists at least a dozen non-biased sources for notability.
  3. . The links to Twitter and Facebook were added by an editor and deleted by editors, a normal occurrence on Wikipedia.
  4. . This accusation is hearsay.
  5. . The article is written in a neutral point of view, contains no advertising or spam and meets notability guidelines.

Wikipedia is an open forum. What time zone the editor is in is irrelevant to this discussion. Aviation geek —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Aviation geek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • You can only !vote once in a deletion discussion. As you have already !voted above, I've struck the "keep" portion of your comment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company seems to be remarkably adept at getting its press releases plastered across the web, but there's nothing in the way of reliable third-party sources.Icarus1980 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Icarus1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You can only !vote once in a deletion discussion. As you have already !voted above, I've struck the "delete" portion of your comment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are numerous examples of notable stories reported by reputable third-party sources. I cite as examples some of the links that show up in the articles references list:

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2013/06/21/angel-medflight-finds-better-ways-of.html

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22757656/2013/07/03/angel-medflight

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20130207/NEWS03/702079883

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Mother-of-quints-4-surviving-babies-flying-home-thanks-to-Scottsdale-company-190028871.html

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/pensacola/student-surprised-with-angelmed-flight

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2013/05/10/2498012_locals-raise-money-to-fly-injured.html


The letter from the U.S. Congressman is also seems to be a valid endorsement of the company’s notability. - MidWillametteValley —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — MidWillametteValley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It would appear MidWillametteValley is another sock puppet for Aviation geek and Oregon Beavers

The editor identified only as 67.216.17.3 is resorting to unnecessary name-calling in a forum designed for debate on the article's notability. This person then maliciously removed relevant and notable content from the article. Aviation geek (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In spite of the fact that many of the references are to stories about the transported people rather than about the company, the many press realeases, and in spite of the drama above, there are a number of sources here which do have solid information about the company. I believe that there is enough coverage to establish notability, even though it has to be gathered from a number of of sources. The letter from a congressman is not a published source; if he had written it as a letter to the editor of a newspaper, that would have been different. I added one more reference from Aviation Online Magazine. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that allegations of sock-puppetry are relevant to a deletion discussion when a vote is being taken, and that none of the accused have denied it, or denied being closely connected with the company. Perhaps they would like to do so, or declare a conflict of interest? The issue about removing or changing content is a separate one from this deletion discussion and should take place on the article's talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, both OregonBeavers and MidWillametteValley pass the duck test as socks - ironically though, so does Icarus1980. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 2 August 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article states "The company received national media attention in May 2013 when it transported a homeless hit-and-run victim from San Francisco, California to Columbus, Georgia" but of the two sources given, one doesn't mention Angel MedFlight and the other is a passing mention in a sentence. Basically there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources for an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a paramedic there is so little out there supporting EMS and EMS services, compared to Police or Fire systems. It's hard to prove that they have notability when Fire or police get most of the PR coverage in media. Most times medics are long gone by the time the press get to the scene. With all the external reputable sources, letters from government and articles of human interest stories. I think this article should stay.jbignell (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some Admin abuse of power here. MidWillametteValley and Aviation Geek are completely different people. Proper CheckUser will find IP is listed as in Oregon while Aviation Geek's is from Arizona.WP:DUCK should not stand as MidWillamettValley Voted and made a case against DGG's reasons for this Deletion with six 3rd party News Stories from recognized regional and local news sites. There are over 20 now listed on the article. In addition, as a medical carrier news stories about patients and the special cases that Angel Medflight is able to fly is certainly significant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.110.119 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:INHERITED. As for the duck test, if you have issues with CU, raise them with the CU who was involved with the case, although I wonder how you know Aviation geek's IP is from Arizona as he edits logged in? And the nature of MWV's !vote supports a duck-test result, while the WP:BOMBARDMENT doesn't provide significant coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 9 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angel_MedFlight_Worldwide_Air_Ambulance&oldid=1082500692"