- 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SkyVector.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable website and WP is not an internet quide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it non-notable? What do you consider a notable website? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability of website is already confirmed on talk page. The website's systems were used on an industry-standard software. The article is also far from being considered a "internet guide" style. TheFSAviator • T 17:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Creator of article)[reply]
- Delete no sign of notability the industry-standard software being quoted ARINC Direct is a flight planning website that is not really notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all... ARINC creates software used by just about every airline, that is the reason I originally included "ARINC, the creators of ACARS,". The company is notable enough so that if it uses skyvector software, this makes it notable.TheFSAviator • T 14:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might make it worth mentioning in the ARINC article, but a notable company using someone else's product does not automatically make the supplier notable. In this case the refs do not support that needed level of notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable website. The two non-company refs could be used to support a mention of the software used at ARINC, but it doesn't establish the notability of this website as neither is about this website, but is about ARINC. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aviation website used by many pilots and aviators. Why there is a sudden deletion rant of aviation articles by Alan Liefting I don't know. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There's good work here, and even if notability can't be established, it still worth keeping the content and incorporating it to another article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you suggest it be merged to? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second this. Can't think of any article it could be merged with ATM. TheFSAviator • T —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Not sure where the good work is or the worth, all the article says is this website has aeronautical maps and ARINC have used them in there website. Hardly worth moving anywhere, hence the deletion discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second this. Can't think of any article it could be merged with ATM. TheFSAviator • T —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough to warrant its own article. The sentence on ARINC Direct could be moved to the ARINC article though. -fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not enough significant coverage. Agree about merging the ARINC sentence. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (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.