Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerotoxic Association

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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerotoxic Association

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

This organization is not notable, it is a political advocacy group which is seeking to get recognition for the bogus "Aerotoxic Syndrome." It is a spam page for that political advocacy group, it violates WP NPOV, and WP RS. There is no valid scientific evidence to support their claims or agenda. They have tried to use this page, as well as Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines, and Aerotoxic Syndrome and Bleed air to support and advance their political agenda. EditorASC (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added sources that establish notability. There were a number of them from mainstream newspapers. I do not see any NPOV violation whatsoever in the content of this article. From your wording of this nomination, you strongly suggest to having a personal vendetta on getting these articles deleted. Silver seren^C 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I have listed the ways that this article and its promoters violate Wiki Policies. How is calling attention to those violations a PERSONAL VENDETTA? Please address the policy violation issues I have raised, and cease making personal attacks on the messenger.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter editors."

There are two primary editors that have created Wiki articles for the sole purpose of promoting the alleged Aerotoxic syndrome. Their contribution records, with few exceptions, are almost all in these articles, or in articles about the organizations that support this agenda:

The Aerotoxic Association article.
The Aerotoxic syndrome article.
The British Air Line Pilots Association article.
The Welcome Aboard Toxic Airlines article.
The GCAQE article. (This one was started by Wiki Editor "GCAQE". That was such an obvious and blatant violation of using Wiki for spamming for that organization, that the user name was [blocked]. I suspect that one of the two editors I have mentioned, used that nic, until the block forced a new selection.

They also inserted passages in the articles on Bleed air and Cabin pressurization, with the same unsupported claims about that alleged syndrome. None of which is supported by conclusions from scientific research. It is obvious they are members of those organizations and/or the Labor Unions that are behind it all.

In the Aerotoxic Syndrome article, those WP:COI editors repeatedly cited sources that did not in fact provide any scientific support for the claims they were making. They even used quotations (with the quotation marks around the statements), that were not in the articles that they used as citations for those bogus quotations. In short, they used bogus citation "sources" (my quotes) repeatedly. To me, that indicates both bad faith editing and a violation of WP:COI.

In the first paragraph of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, it is stated that "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform,..." In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not to be used for "...a soapbox or means of promotion...Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise." Yet, that is precisely what is going on with the articles that exist for the promoting of the alleged Aerotoxic Syndrome. That is why I see those articles, promoted by those two WP:COI editors, as a direct and blatant violation of the policy which says Wiki cannot be used as a place for spam advertising and promotion by other organizations.

Whether or not other editors agree with me on this issue, that is how this debate should be framed: It should be a thorough discussion on this and the other issues I have raised, which I see as Wiki policy violations. Please explain why I am wrong, if you disagree, but don't make any more personal attacks on the messenger. None of us should have to be reminded why that is always an improper response. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. I did skim though. First off, from your nomination, you used language such as "bogus", "no valid scientific evidence", and "claims and agenda", all of which is language that has nothing to do with nominating an article for deletion and only seems to show that you have a personal interest in this article. And the others as well.

Now, to tackle your response paragraph by paragraph. I apologize if you feel my use of "personal vendetta" was an attack, it was not meant to be. I was merely trying to point out that you have a conflict of interest in this article.

As for the rest of your paragraphs, from looking at the articles, I do not see any POV like you claim. Perhaps a small amount, but that is all and should be fixed through editing. Articles for Deletion is not for things you feel violate NPOV. These articles are clearly notable from their valid sourcing, which means that they should be cleaned up, not sent here. This nomination is already against AfD policy as it it.

Let me remind you that you should not misrepresent Wikipedia policy for your own aims, as that can be seen as gaming the system. Have a nice day. Silver seren^C 21:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm normally skeptical of ARS-sourcing, but this organisation is clearly notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We love you too. :) Silver seren^C 03:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I still have my card: [1] :) --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me. I am not sure whether the pilots are correct or not, but there is a controversy that is documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2010 (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.