Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pytchair

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pytchair

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Pytchair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails general notability. 100% pure corporate puff-piece. Only substantial contributor has a clear conflict of interest. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis that entire article written by undisclosed COI. Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (barely): Needs cleanup, rhis is a three paragraph article at most, but it meets GNG. [1], [2], [3].  // Timothy :: talk  21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG as an aircraft due to ITV and BBC coverage at least WP:PROMO issues can be dealt with through normal editing. FOARP (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG without a doubt. Article needs a bit of cleanup for improvement, but is clearly worth keeping in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I cleaned up the article. Still more to be done. I think the registration and ownership info in the infobox should be removed, it is unsourced, but I imagine someone could find this info in a database, so I marked it cn. // Timothy :: talk  02:27, 24 May 2023 (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.