Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of aviation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
KleenupKrew (talk | contribs)
Line 11: Line 11:
*'''Delete''', as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Essay, original research, something made up in one day, and possibly somebody's idea of a joke. "Acting in the Spirit" indeed. [[User:KleenupKrew|KleenupKrew]] ([[User talk:KleenupKrew|talk]]) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Essay, original research, something made up in one day, and possibly somebody's idea of a joke. "Acting in the Spirit" indeed. [[User:KleenupKrew|KleenupKrew]] ([[User talk:KleenupKrew|talk]]) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' OR, probably a hoax. '''''[[User:RC-0722|<font color="#CC5500">RC-0722</font>]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/RC-0722|<font color="#0000FF">247.5</font>]]</sup>/[[User talk:RC-0722|<font color="#FF0000">1</font>]]''''' 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:12, 18 May 2008

Spirit of aviation

Spirit of aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm loath to AfD this, as someone's obviously put a LOT of work into it — but I can't see any way it could ever be a viable article. Despite the 17 references, it's clearly a piece of original research. ("Its meaning is generally conveyed and well understood despite the lack of formal and objective definition", a direct quote from the current version of the article, pretty much sums up the problem here.) This is hopelessly non-neutral and unreferenceable, and despite the work that's gone into it I think it needs to be deleted; I can't even see any viable content to salvage and merge into existing articles. iridescent 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article. Trees RockMyGoal 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate as it is nice and obviously they have put some time into it, but it smacks of OR. -- Alexf42 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially pure OR and the concept of the article is such that is couldn't really be anythings else. Unfortunate but there it is. Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those aren't references; it's a directory of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. JIP | Talk 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, original research, something made up in one day, and possibly somebody's idea of a joke. "Acting in the Spirit" indeed. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, probably a hoax. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]