Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airship Management Services, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 closed as keep due to nominator withdrawing his nom. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airship Management Services, Inc.

Airship Management Services, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article's creator and only major contributor User:Airshipman is a representative of Airship Management Services, Inc. This is quite clear in the source descriptions of images this user uploaded. See Special:Contributions/Airshipman. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • A conflict of interest alone is not a reason to delete. From WP:COI: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." I suggest withdrawing the deletion nomination unless you actually think the company isn't notable, which it might well not be, but your nomination didn't mention that. --W.marsh 19:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: The article is an awful mess at the moment - and shows a strong conflict oif intrest, but does seem to have Reliable Sorces - if these actually do support the article and talk about the company (rather than just a passing mention) then this probably is notable.Nigel Ish 20:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please don't confuse COI with blatant spam. COI is not a reason to delete. This article is referenced, and yes it had some spammy language, but I and other editors have cleaned this up. I've moved the article to a MOS compliant name (dropped the "Inc"). It probably could stand further cleanup, but as one of the few companies that is actively building and operating airships, it's notable in that regard, the article has good sourcing (though I'm sure more can be found), and IMHO meets our policies and guidelines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggested the article about George Spyrou ought to be redirected here in the AfD discussion about his article. The article seems thoroughly well referenced with notable arm's-length third-party sources; the topic seems sufficiently notable to me; it's Mr. Spyrou who doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. The COI is a problem, but not necessarily cause for deletion, just some rewriting to bring it more into line with WP:NPOV (for instance, deleting the direct link to the company's website). Accounting4Taste 23:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A "direct link to the company's website" is not in violation of WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. But it should be airshipman.com and not the holding company (amusingly, one of the sister companies seems to have lost control of its domain). Official websites of companies are routinely linked to in their articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Though it needs clean-up as stated in above posts. Also, we do have direct links to many company pages on Wkipedia, so we just need tomake sure it's the top-level page, not a link to a sale department. - BillCJ 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to Airship Management Services per WP:NCC. Adlike tone still predominates but references check out. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Article has already been moved to that name. Btw, WP:NCC links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)! I assume you had different one in mind, like Coporate, but I don't know that link's shortcut. - BillCJ 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep (Nominator). I made a poor choice in nominating this article, and hereby withdraw my nomination. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:23, 10 October 2007 (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.