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, as this is not a vote and no credible third-party sources have been presented to verify notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flightsim.com[edit]

Contested WP:PROD for a website not giving any third-party evidence for notability. I just deleetd their competitor Avsim.com as an uncontested prod. Delete unless third party sources show WP:WEB or WP:CORP compliance. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Recury 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - one of the most popular flight simulator sites on the internet, has been around for about 11 years.--Nobunaga24 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do you know of reliable sources that indicate/verify notability? Articles or reviews in significant news, computer gaming, or aviation sites? Lots of hits on google but I haven't yet found anything that establishes its notability, not just its popularity. To differentiate between the two, there's the proposed policy WP:SOFTWARE. While it's only proposed, it gives an idea. Gotyear 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vectro 16:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nobunaga24. Cynical 11:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful parts into Microsoft Flight Simulator: Community involvement Weak Keep does not meet the critera for WP:WEB but that is only a rough guideline. As per Nobunaga24, it is clearly one of the most popular FS sites on the internet. It has remained, relatively unchanged for about 11 years. On that ground I think that it is weakly notable. At the same time, the article reads like an advertisment and needs a rewrite. Mozzie 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - looking at the criteria for WP:WEB, it actually looks like avsim.com might have met the criteria even closer. Unfortunately, that has been deleted, but I totally agree, if this article stays, it needs a rewrite, and a close eye on the external links section, which gets spammed by everyone else who has set up a fly-by-night flight sim web site. I'm not passionate about saving it, but I think it genuinely deserves an article. Both it and avsim have been battling it out for a while now for the title of most popular flight sim site. Both are not just a few guys with a geocities account. For example, companies that produce FS software and hardware will frequently cite reviews by both sites, and avsim holds an annual convention that is taken very seriously by Microsoft, who, if I'm not mistaken, used it to unveil their next generation flight simulator. --Nobunaga24 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Perhaps there could be a section on the FS page for file archive sites, which are a major part of the community, which is in turn a major part of what FS is about, then flightsim.com can redirect to that.Mozzie 01:54, 20 October 2006 (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.