Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirNav Systems RadarBox
- 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- AirNav_Systems_RadarBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is an advertisement. This has not been remedied since the original advertisement was flagged in January 2012. Noelmg (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found:
- In depth review by Monitoring Times magazine Reliable, takes pride in being independent of the manufacturers
- review at AVSIM Online
- Review at FlightSim.com
- review at Install or Not Journalistc; might be a blog
- The first reference is reliable and the next two look like independent reviews to me. If so, then there are multiple reliable sources and the topic would seem to pass notability guidelines. I agree that the article looks quite promotional and needs work to become encyclopedic. But this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP. Notability and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-sources are there. The subject is notable.--Soroboro (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one of many similar amateur/semi-professional ADS-B receivers none really notable but could be included in a article covering all of these boxes. MilborneOne (talk)
- No. Here at Wikipedia we have both articles covering notable technologies and articles covering specific notable products, but we do not have articles that review or compare a range of similar products. That would be original research synthesis. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion was not a comparison article just a description of this and the similar SBS-1 and many other similar amateur receivers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're suggesting, but the fact is that notable products DO deserve their own article regardless, and non-notable products DO NOT deserve a mention, even in a collective article. This particular product is clearly notable as a result of the substantial coverage it has received in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion was not a comparison article just a description of this and the similar SBS-1 and many other similar amateur receivers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Here at Wikipedia we have both articles covering notable technologies and articles covering specific notable products, but we do not have articles that review or compare a range of similar products. That would be original research synthesis. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Monitoring Times review is definitely a independent reliable secondary source. Both the AVSIM Online and the FlightSim.com seem to be independent, selective in the items they review and written by staff rather than contributors, so I would suggest that they also qualify as reliable secondary sources. However the Install Or Not review DOES NOT, because of this:
- "but being Install or Not we review all products which need to be reviewed in order to help you guys decide whether the product is for you or not !"
- (emphasis added by me)
- The article clearly needs work as it's worded like an advertisement, but the subject matter is clearly notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding this. I agree, "Install or not" is not a reliable source. --Mark viking (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added these references to the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (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.