| Revision as of 11:22, 18 May 2008 editJIP (talk | contribs)Administrators68,537 edits →Spirit of aviation: delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:46, 18 May 2008 edit undoKleenupKrew (talk | contribs)1,323 edits →Spirit of aviation: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''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) | |||
Revision as of 12:46, 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)
- Delete Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article. Trees Rock 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 OR. -- Alexf 03:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete. Those aren't references; it's a directory of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as basically POV, belongs off-site if anywhere. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)