Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of Fame

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planes of Fame[edit]

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

This article is written like a promotional press release (glowing, almost reverential style, and even the prices of the plane rides!), which isn't surprising when one considers that all but one of its references are the website of the organization in question. Wikipedia isn't a free advertising forum. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one of the more important air museums out there. It looks like a supporter put too much brochure material in the article but I don't think that means we delete it. I cleaned some verbiage that shouldn't have been in the article. --MarsRover (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known southern California attraction; the search string <"Planes of Fame" Chino"> yields several hundred hits at Google Books.[1] Article could stand some more cleanup, but that is not a matter for AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of significant hits at Google Books and Google Scholar. Badly in need of a clean-up, of course. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found same significant number of hits as described by Rlandmann; therefore it appears to have passed WP:NN. Article does need a major rewrite to reduce promotional nature, and for NPOV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While the subject of the article may be noteworthy, the article itself is a loser, even with the worst of the grandstanding language removed. It has only two sources; one of them is used once, and is the only source for its section (which is even written in the first person!), so it's essentially a one-source article. More disturbing, the one source is the website of the subject of the article (and the other source is from its section's subject's website), a violation of the self-published source rule (WP:SPS). An article based on its subject's own (self-published) website falls far short of the verifiability standards. Until and unless a collection of proper outside sources is developed, I'd drop this article. It can be re-instituted when good sources turn up. Google-citing guys: here's your chance to go get those "significant hits" and use them to establish facts, while dropping the remaining rah-rah language. --JingleJim (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As JingleJim suggested, I added some secondary citations. As well, I did some more clean up, removed the advert tag and replaced it with refimprove. More secondary sources are needed for the details, I think, but some major points are now covered, including secondary sources that they exist, have a large collection, some one of a kinds, and do monthly airshows. Nihola (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2011 (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.