Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit of aviation


 * 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

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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. —  iride  scent  01:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry. But your right it could never be a viable article. Trees Rock MyGoal 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. -- Alexf42 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. J I P  | 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)
 * Delete OR, probably a hoax.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOT. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and Nonsense. MilborneOne (talk) 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! corpdash (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * suggestion How about rewording it as an article specificaly about the phrase. DGG (talk) 21:49, 20 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.