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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Sport (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Ahunt (creator) with the following rationale "It has reliable third party sources that establish notability, please read the ref list fr more details". Well, the ref consists of a single entry: " Bertrand, Noel; Rene Coulon; et al: World Directory of Leisure Aviation 2003-04, page 66. Pagefast Ltd, Lancaster UK, 2003. ISSN 1368-485X". AGF the company is mentioned there, nonetheless without a quote we can't know if this is in-depth coverage, or a mention in passing. Either way, the source is not very reliable: [1] describes it as " the most complete buyers guide for sport flying equipment available." - in other words, a sales catalogue. I don't see how this is sufficient, given I can't find any other sources (I tried GNews, and GBooks, and see nothing else). A company whose only listing is a (presumed) profile in a sales catalogue does not seem worthy of being in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clear precedent is any aircraft manufacturer is notable for inclusion, it could do with more reference but that shouldnt be a reason for deletion, I also dont see anything wrong with the World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a source it certainly is not a "sale catalogue" but a directory as it says on the tin. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The reference entry is extensive enough to produce the article as it currently reads and so the subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. The cited ref is not just a "phone book" directory, but extensive descriptions of aircraft and manufacturers as can be seen by the information cited in the article. Also a previous AfD established that the World Directory of Leisure Aviation is a suitable independent third-party reference. As an aircraft manufacturer the company is notable and I will research and add further paper references, such as Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft. It would have been more courteous to discuss on the talk page first, rather than going directly to a PROD and AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Ahunt. Also a frivolous/premature AFD. Oh for the good old days on Wikipedia when PRODs/AFDs were a last resort, not the first, and noms actually discussed deletions on article talk page before taking the drastic final step of AFD. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Ahunt, including the comment on courtesy. Just because an editor has only cited one source so far does not mean that no other sources exist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Ahunt and Steelpillow. TSRL (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2015 (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.