Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines


 * 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   keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The movie described on this page, is not notable. It is a political spam page for the organizations promoting the bogus "Aerotoxic Syndrome," it violates the NPOV policy, there is no WP RS to support the claims. EditorASC (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There may or not be RS to support the film's claims... but Wikipedia is not making any claims, though the film itself might, and Wikipedia is not about judging the film's accuracy, as Wikipedia is not censored. One of our most basic core policies states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.". We are not an inquisition set to judge the film's content. We can only decide whether or not the film itself being itself covered in sources might or might not show the film as notable... no matter the film's content.  The article is not about whether or not flying on planes might or might not be toxic, as that is where we might find OR and POV.  The article is about a controversial film, and the film's notability or lack comes from the film itself being covered or not in reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since opining above, I have revisited the article and performed some cleanup to neutralize POV, improved sources to show meeting the GNG, and removed some unneccessary ELs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's improvements. There seems to be adequate sources to pass WP:N and no substantial POV problems. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google News search at the top of this AFD. Plenty of notable news sources review the documentary.   D r e a m Focus  00:59, 24 March 2010 (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.