Deletion of Air Hawke's Bay

Comment: Nothing demonstrates that this company passes  as there simply is no in-depth third party sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: despite all the claims here that the organization must be notable and the addition of some refs to the article not one of them meets the requirements of  and  to establish notability. Careful reading of all the refs shows each one to be mere passing mentions or directory listings. You need better refs that have '''significant coverage''' to show that this organization is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: You are are confusing notability on Wikipedia with the fact that you think the flying school you are attending is important. It wouldn't matter if the company flies dozens of B-747s on scheduled runs every day, if there are no reliable third party references that have written about the company to the extent required by , then the company should not have an article on Wikipedia. What you know, that has not been documented in reliable third part references, is called |original research and it is not acceptable because other people will disagree with what you think you know. You can add that this company runs five charters a week and someone else will come along and say "no they don't, they went out of business two years ago". The only way we can tell which one is right is through reliable third party references, which is why the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is |"verifiability not truth". Without this requirement Wikipedia would be nothing more than a blog where people argue over their own version of he Truth. The other factor here is that this company, while it surely does exist, is no different from ten thousand other flying school/air taxi operators around the world. It exists but there isn't much more to be said about it. My neighbour's cat exists and may even have its own You Tube channel, but it doesn't meet notability requirements and so should not have an Wikipedia article about it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:OR||WP:V||WP:T)

Comment: I have now had to remove an anonymous blog that was added as a reference to this article, Please see  to understand why these are not acceptable refs. The very fact that editors are resorting to these sorts of references seems to support the notion that this topic is non-notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: While those things are true, they are not applicable in this case, as this is not a content dispute. As you can see in the nomination this deletion discussion is about whether this topic meets the |notability requirements to justify having an article on it or whether it is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable company. Just because something exists does not mean it should have an article in Wikipedia and so far the references in the article do not meet that minimum threshold to establish notability, which is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)