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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:46, 18 May 2008 editKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits Spirit of aviation: delete← Previous edit Revision as of 17:12, 18 May 2008 edit undoRC-0722 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,982 edits Spirit of aviation: +Next edit →
Line 11: Line 11:
*'''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)

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)

Categories: