Deletion of Problems facing airline pilots

Comment: Although it has proper sources but it fails  because . I agree it reads a  and therefore it should be deleted.  '''The Determinator
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:ESSAY)

Comment: into airline pilot which is currently a redirect to aviator, but which doesn't deal with the topic well.  The topic airline pilot can then be developed into a balanced account of the profession, with a historical and global perspective, to improve on this |soapy stuff
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: per  and . The sources are fitted together to fabricate a synthesis. The wording is inflammatory and the aim is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Nothing here is salvageable as a stand-alone article or as a section merged to Aviator. The author of this material is obviously angry and is clearly wishing enrage the reader. We are not here to do that (see ); we are here to write descriptive text rather than to get a reaction from the reader. If any of the references are worth using elsewhere, for instance at the unwritten article called Airline pilot, I recommend XB70Valyrie stand down and let another writer do the honors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:ACTIVIST)

Comment: This article though well intentioned is  and Wikipedia is certainly not about promoting campaigns of any sort unless they have been reported by numerable third party sorces
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: or '''merge'''. |Essay (yes Virginia, personal essays ''can'' be cited) that is hopelessly  and y
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTESSAY||WP:POV||WP:SOAP)