Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipaire

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wipaire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable company. The Banner talk 10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk)

18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Company is notable in the field of floatplanes. In any article about lightplanes using floats during the latter half of the 20th century, there was a good chance that either Edo or Wipaire was mentioned. There were other float suppliers during those years, of course, but Wipaire was a significant presence. It deserves an article; that is why I created one when I learned that neither the company's founder nor the company was in Wikipedia. Thanks. --Spray787 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIPAIRE

This company is presently one of the largest aircraft-float manufacturers in the United States. Its product line ([1]) runs the gamut from LSA to Twin Otter. Definitely notable. --Spray787 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a significant company in the history of aviation, and a quick gBooks search turns up quite a bit of information - [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Also gNews: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and more. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep - This is a well-known company in US aviation. Does not warrant deletion on notability guidelines. Breadblade (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After the sources Bushranger found, I'm inclined to keep for a number of reasons, but mostly GNG. Mkdw ^talk 09:26, 21 April 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.