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.
Keep - there are numerous sources covering not just its actions but also the organisation itself, easily satisfying WP:GNG. POV issues (if exist) are fixed by fixing the article content, not by deletion. Which part of WP:NOT do you think the article fall foul of? KTC (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any protest group which attracts the level of attention/notoriety (depending on your position) as this organisation did during the debate over UK aviation policy is in my view notable. I also believe that when the history of UK aviation protest it written this organisation will be seen as one of the most significant and effective. As the author of much of the content I would welcome input from others to balance my content. I have tried to remain neutral, but do personally support their aims and I am sure some the article would benefit from some critical editorial input. PeterEastern (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I note that you also marked AirportWatch for deletion on on same day. Nothing wrong with that as such, but possibly we should review the proposals as a pair rather than in isolation. PeterEastern (talk)
Sometimes AFD nomination are taken in block, but in this case I very much agree with the separate nomination as the different organisations while sharing similar aim have varying level of notability. It is best to judge each on its own merit. KTC (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I total agree that they should have their own discussions, however people who have a view on Plane Stupid may also have a view on AirportWatch. I, for example have PlaneStupid on my watch-list, but not AirportWatch and nearly missed the proposal for that article. PeterEastern (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not particularly POV, it is sourced. The group is verifiable and seems to have significant recognized by independent third party reliable sources. I am not sure from the nomination what part of WP:NOT was bothering the nominator. The article is quite episodic, which is not good. It is probably too long for the amount of content, but these are editing not notability or Afd type issues. --Bejnar (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable based on the references and the press coverage of its actions. NPOV isn't grounds for deletion. I've no idea how WP:NOT applies. WP:AfD states "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy", and the deletion proposal fails to do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the organization in notable, I have found the article interesting, and I visit it periodically. I agree with all the the reasoning above in the "Keep" recommendations. Coastwise (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic clearly makes notability requirements. We don't delete articles because they have POV issues, we fix them and this one doesn't seem to really have a POV issue anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (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.