- 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The result was nomination withdrawn after article improvements. No delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Flying_Matters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
While the organisation is, perhaps, noteworthy enough to deserve an article, most of this is irrelevant, and what isn't is poorly written. As the edits are almost exclusively made by one person, and most/many of the references point to http://flyingmatters.co.uk , it is conceivable that this is written by the organisation (it certainly reads like it) and not NPOV. Mullet (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my first significant single addition to wikipedia. I agree it is poorly written at present, but I have been learning fast about wikipedia and the organisation, and would appreciate some help, time and guidance). The organisation is certainly worthy, and is making a lot of noise in the UK. The article certainly needs proof reading, many mistakes are invisible to my eyes, but I wanted to get the structure together first and was planning to arrange to get that done today. It is certianly wrriten by one person so far, but is only 3 days old and it is not written by the organisation, far from it, I am actually pretty critical of their motives, but have tried to keep it reasonably objective. I have probably failed miserably! The main issue I would appreciate guidance on in the scope. Should this be a 15 line article with the bare bones? or is most of what I have relevant? (probably not - it grew). I would like the content I have written to be available somewhere on the web, but I agree much of it may not belong in wikipedia. Should the article consist of a basic descoption of the organisation with a controvercy section and the key objections? I am certainly guilty of 'not reading the manual'. guidance please, thanks . PeterIto (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reflected on the above criticism and have now re-organised the article. I have moved the members to the top to keep all the factual stuff together and moved all the controvercial stuff in a 'Controversies' section. I am guessing that the 'Activities' section may not fit in Wikipedia at all, but will take guidance on that and move it somewhere else on the web if appropriate. I will get the article proof-read soon if no one else does it firstPeterIto (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nomination does not provide a reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in anticipation of cleanup, which I might end up helping with. Cleanup is not a valid rationale for deletion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article is in desperate need of cleanup, but adequate notability established through the references. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- My reasoning for deletion was that starting from scratch was better than getting into an edit-war. I can see now that, after the reorganisation of the page, there is a lot of useful information there, and that it's not one-sided, as I had thought. The timeline seems a little extraneous but otherwise it looks like a good article, sorry. I vote to keep now, of course.Mullet (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (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.