Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Spirit of aviation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:46, 18 May 2008 editKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits →Spirit of aviation: delete← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:29, 20 February 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,297 editsm →[]: fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB 
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Snowball Delete''' --] 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}


:{{la|Spirit of aviation}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Spirit of aviation}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
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. <font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"> — ]]</span> 01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article.<font face="Arial Black"> ]<sup>]</sup></font> 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article.<span style="font-family:Arial Black;"> ]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Unfortunate as it is nice and obviously they have put some time into it, but it smacks of ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Unfortunate as it is nice and obviously they have put some time into it, but it smacks of ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' Essentially pure ] and the concept of the article is such that is couldn't really be anythings else. Unfortunate but there it is. ] (]) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete.''' Essentially pure ] and the concept of the article is such that is couldn't really be anythings else. Unfortunate but there it is. ] (]) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Those aren't references; it's a ] of ]. --] | ] 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Those aren't references; it's a ] of ]. --] | ] 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. ] (]) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''' as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. ] (]) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. ] | ] 11:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Delete''', as much as people have put much work into creating this article, it's inherently POV. ] | ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' OR, probably a hoax. '''''] <sup>]</sup>/]''''' 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ] and ]. ] (]) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as OR and Nonsense. ] (]) 21:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Please Advise''' – all points received, some seem most unfair. If the article is indeed OR then it shouldn’t be - how else does one capture its definition? Perhaps far better understood and appreciated by the pilot community?! (not designed to provoke) If it’s nonsense - why? If it’s a joke – why? Please explain and perhaps it can be worked on and moved to a more appropriate place? I believe that the article is objective, but if it belongs off-site, then by all means delete and please advise. Perhaps advise how to bring it in line with expectations, try to be positive! ] (]) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''suggestion''' How about rewording it as an article specificaly about the phrase. ''']''' (]) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 00:29, 20 February 2023

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 Snowball Delete --JForget 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)


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.