- 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Bond Aviation Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A PROD was challenged and re-prodded 3 times. I don't support the PROD, but it looks like the only way to resolve this will involve AfD.
The PROD rationale was this: "this page is no longer valid. Bond Aviation Group no longer exists and all the detail on this page is either incorrect or can be accessed from a better route. It's not correct to say it has become Babcock Mission Critical Services - this is a much larger international group of companies. Bond Aviation Group has been replaced by Babcock Mission Critical Services offshore and Babcock Mission Critical Services Offshore, both of which have their own Wikipedia pages, linked from their old names of bond Air Services and Bond Offshore Helicopters." Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Flerg: - please comment
- keep - If Bond Aviation Group has ceased or changed, then the article will need updating. That is not reason to delete it though. We still keep articles on historically notable buggy-whip manufacturers. I would also remind Flerg that once a PROD has been challenged, that aticle cannot be re-prodded. Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep we don't delete articles just because companies change name or evolve as this is an encyclopedia not a listing of current companies. If it factually wrong then it can be corrected. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy Dingley apologies if I am doing this wrong. I am not very au fait with the editing process. If it is appropriate that the page remains I will make edits to ensure the evolution of the business is clear and that it doesn't mislead any visitors. Flerg Flerg ( talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete instead perhaps as I'm not seeing anything particularly convincing of the needed substance and my searches have found only a few links, nothing else to suggest the needed improvements. This can be mentioned however amount needed at the Babcock article. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 ( talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - although I am not certain, this sounds like a violation of WP:OWN, a company employee desiring for an article on a subsidiary of a company to be deleted. This isn't how Wikipedia works - for example, Microsoft has purchased LinkedIn, but the LinkedIn article isn't going anywhere. Blythwood ( talk) 12:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Milborne One. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.