Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirwaySim

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 delete. Nominator's reason was not valid but the delete arguments, based on searches by several users which have failed to establish notability, are stronger than the keeps. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AirwaySim

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

Per the consensus at Airwaysim, which was deleted 22:20 2 May 2009 by User:Mentifisto under A7. This article has been opened again under a new name, thus it should be deleted. 203.218.190.46 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale does not make sense. The deletion of Airwaysim was a speedy deletion and does not represent any kind of consensus. It was a judgment by a single administrator that the Airwaysim article did not include any indication of importance; it was not a judgment about the intrinsic notability of the topic. The current AirwaySim article, by contrast, is reasonably well sourced and appears to reference coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as required by our notability guideline). Furthermore, the article was created through the articles-for-creation process, meaning that it was already scrutinized by one or more experienced editors who judged the article worthy. —Caesura ^(t) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the one review used as a reference enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:V? I've tried looking for other references, but that one is all I can find. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand the nominator's rationale, but we can at least examine the article whilst it's here. This is not "reasonably well sourced." The FlightSimX.com and FlightSim.com sources are basically press releases; AirwaySim.com is a primary source, and TeenCastic is far from a reliable source (their "About" page still shows the default web software blurb). Google News, etc, isn't bringing anything viable up. So unless there's a specialist simulation magazine out there that's given it some coverage, this does not meet the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid entry. There is no reason that through editing it cannot reach the standards of Wikipedia.Kazari (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I can't find significant reliable sources that aren't press releases. Can anyone else? The one review is fairly lacking IMO though if there were one good source to go with it, I'd change to keep. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you need to get a life. Nothing wrong with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesyuk9 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Jonesyuk9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete The article is obviously just a method of advertising for the company to gain more brand awareness (tagged as advertisment already, Notability guidelines state Wikipedia is not for self promotion and indiscriminate publicity). There are no other sources except for the website's own and other third-party ones mentioned above. Unlike Airliners.net or FlyerTalk, for example, it does not offer anything else worth noting such as a forum for aviation enthusiasts. It is also probably made by the owner, Sami Puro, as tracing User:83.145.237.108, I find that it originates from Finland also. The same applies to User:Airwaysim, that created Airwaysim. Just my view. 218.103.156.180 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding User:Jonesyuk9's comment, it is totally without any backing. See [1] for JonesyUK (AirwaySim forum).218.103.156.180 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, the rationale of the nominator is HUGELY incorrect. The article is NOT the "same" article was here about a year ago and deleted for some reason.

Then secondly the comments made by 218.103.156.180 (aka toyotaboy95) are also HUGELY incorrect and I object these kind of assumptions what he makes. First of all it is not just random aviation site like FlyerTalk, he has probably misunderstood the whole concept of that site or is just otherwise ignorant. The article is about an MMOG which Wiki has dozens of others too, even of some more minor games than this I see.

The previous article under title Airwaysim was indeed created by an user with a same username, but I can assure you 100% that it was NOT made by the site administration, ie. me, or anyone associated to the site as I personally investigated this why someone is trying to do Wikipedia things in "our name", and the username of that user was then changed as per my request even.

And neither is this article made by us (for the record the software originates from Finland and has a large userbase here). I did make an edit to this article yesterday which I believe is allowed still. But what he is talking is fully made up things so better disregard that. I wonder what he has against this article or website as he is an user of the site too - he himself tagged the article as an ad, and now uses it as an deletion rationale.

Also I agree that the comment of JonesyUK9 in this talk page is inappropriate.

For the sources & verifiability, I have been informed that a flight simulation site is working on a review / article of some sort of this project and when it comes out I will add it to the list of sources here, and you wikipedians can then further edit the article to make it better. But that's all I have add to this discussion, I wanted to clear some of these false accusations - please continue :) ~~S.Puro / admin of the site in question, newbie Wiki user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.188.157 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Marasmusine, this article has not cleared the notability hurdle through having non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. In plain English: Wikipedia articles about video games are built from sources like reviews, and those reviews etc. have to be of a certain quality (see reliable sources). If they aren't available, there's no basis for an article. The sources are glorified press-releases and a review from Joe Bloggs' blog, that doesn't cut it, and I can't find anything better from a web search. No prejudice against recreation should a few quality reviews appear. Someone another 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're here, doesn't that explanation (BTW, thanks for taking the time to make it for the anons) sound like it could apply equally to verifiability? The long and short of V is that the word of an open wiki isn't worth much, and neither are our articles if we can't give a proper answer to the question "says who?" I've begun to suspect that N is often brandished in situations where V would be enough. Appealing to the latter could save WP some drama: V's a universal cornerstone of the project, N's a cudgel. --Kiz o r 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could in this instance, though if the press releases were hosted on a more reliable site then we'd have to go back to notability anyway. I'm certain that I'm guilty of defaulting to notability when verifiability is a more pressing issue, but will continue to try and keep WP:V in mind. Notability is given a bum rap and made out to be some frippery when it's actually as practical as a hammer or screwdriver. It's an extension of verifiability and neutrality, that WP is an encyclopedia not a database, and that editors cannot generate original research to make articles resemble encyclopedia material. I love video games and would like to see every game eligible for an article to have one (whether it's an MMOG, a retrogame, a flash-game, whatever), but I know from hard experience that if it doesn't pass the notability standard then it's never going to be a proper article no matter how much time is spent on it. Someone another 13:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article should be deleted because it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability in that it has not received coverage in secondary, reputable reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (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.