Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsh Aviation

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. postdlf (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Aviation

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

I added this article to my watchlist several months ago and it recently caught my attention so I thought I would search for some sources and found this, their CEO was indicted on illegally exporting equipment to Venezuela and the article also offers some other details such as their 2009 bankruptcy. As a result of this, I searched again adding "Floyd Stilwell" and found additional results and an FBI press release here which mentions the FBI, Immigrant and Customs Enforcement, Department of Defense and Defense Criminal Investigation Service were involved in the investigation. Performing another search also provided results including this which narrowly mentions them. As mentioned above, the company filed for Chapter 11 in 2009 after their sales started failing and hoped to return but I don't see any evidence that they emerged afterwards but it seems that wasn't their first time with law troubles, this happened in 1988. Although there are some interesting details here, I believe this may not be sufficient and it seems they gained the most attention for the 1988 and 2010 indictments. I also found this (third result from the top) which mentions the founder, Dick Marsh and this mentions a president and general manager. The article claims the company was founded in 1961 but this (first from the top) is a 1959 news article that mentions them. Any comments? SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not clear under what grounds you are nominating the article for deletion, but the refs you have found seem to indicate that the topic meets WP:GNG. That said the article needs a complete rewrite from scratch to incorporate what you have found and either source or remove the unsourced text there now. I think the bottom line is that it seems to be a notable subject for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that WP:GNG is criteria for appropriate sourcing in which this article has none. The above sources need to be added as we're discussing the merits of the article and not the resources found in the AfD . The no sources template has been there since April 2012.Mkdw ^talk 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the nominator has now found enough sources to show notability as noted above. These just need to be added and the article rewritten. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the existence of this deletion discussion has been made at WikiProject Aircraft and WikiProject Aviation

Keep a notable subject just a crap article, needs a complete re-write and purge but that is not the same as deleting it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until fixed or delete - totally unreferenced, almost all content dumped in by a single long-inactive userLeadSongDog come howl! 03:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At present, the article does not provide any verifiable sources or references. No article on Wikipedia is allowed to stay with out this. I will re-evaluate my position should this change. Mkdw ^talk 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I was well aware the sources listed could at least help the article from its current state but I think it may not be enough, there doesn't seem to be much information aside from the two law cases and much less the exact history of this company. There is a news article from 1959 that mentions the company but one of the Arizona Republic articles state the history as 31 years as of 2010. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the existing unsourced text will have to go, but the sources that you have provided will support a short and perhaps more interesting article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is very poor, some of the modification programs that the company has worked on (particularly the Turbo-Thrush modification, with at least 75 modified and the Tracker modifications - 6 sold to the Argentine Navy and ~20 fire bombers for the State of California [1]) probably go far enough to establish some sort of notability. I've added a few references referring to some of the modification programs to the article. This is a search in the Flight International archives (up to 2004) which gives some more articles covering the company.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deleting has been given, AFAICT. It seems a notable topic, with sources available. --do ncr am 23:04, 18 December 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.