Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsh Aviation (2nd nomination)

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Aviation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my mind, this article is blatantly promotional and should be deleted. Do others have the same opinion? Rogermx (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I know that invoking TNT is not popular in AfD discussions, but this article is this bad. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as though its a resume for the company. Per WP:PROMO, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no assertion of non-notability in the nomination. Edit it down to remove anything overtly promotional. The first part at least is not that bad, i haven't read it all. Don't waste other editors time with cycle of AFDs and re-creations, and don't try to force other editors to clean up upon your demand either. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have read it all and most of the article is strictly promotional material. Frankly, I don't think it is a waste of time to rid Wikipedia of articles that violate its rules. Rogermx (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Doncram and WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If the information comes back, then deal with the users that are violating the rules directly. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- promotionalism is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. WP:PROMO is a policy, while WP:GNG is a guideline. The former trumps the latter. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a policy regarding article content, not necessarily a reason for deletion. In this case, there is an older version to revert to which ought to meet the policy, and that has been done. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and restarted from an old revision. Daß Wölf 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with old version provided by Daß Wölf. Thank you for your intervention. Rogermx (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.