Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFerry
WP:COI|COI is no reason to automatically |nuke a page, and it seems that {{ul|GoldenClockCar}} has been diligent about following process, declaring COI, and seeking consensus & review on edits to his employer's article. The article does a good job of reflecting |neutrality and is very well sourced. We seem to have established here that the business is notable and worthy of its own page. If there was an issue with COI on the page, that would be an issue to be cleaned up by neutral editors, not burned to the ground just to build it up from scratch again.  {{ul|GoldenClockCar}}, you ''should'' post suggested changes on the article's talk page, and refrain from editing the article directly. Wikipedia policy does not ''forbid'' it, but you can see from the discussion going on here that the community frowns upon it, as there have been many instances of editors with a skewed POV advocating their positions in opposition of the community and causing all sorts of problems. |Not that I'm saying you have. Look through the history of Falun Gong and the many, many, many disputes referring to that article if you want a primer. (Not recommended
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NUKEANDPAVE||WP:NPOV||WP:GOODFAITH (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over)