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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

This is a procedural nomination, that should not be counted as an opinion one way or the other. This article was deleted by Eagle 101 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2006-10-04 for being "spam" after OBILI (talk · contribs) had tagged it with ((db-club)). The speedy deletion was contested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Given the contest, and the fact that the speedy deletion was only 2 days after the new speedy deletion criterion for blatant advertising (#G11) was first introduced, it seems prudent to send this through AFD. Uncle G 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not-notable. Doesn't seem speediable though since it claims notability (50,000 members or whatever) and the advertising doesn't seem that blatant to me. That said, I can't find any evidence that anyone besides people who play flight sims would care about this. Recury 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable within it's own field. While I agree that the article needs a good re-write to comply with WP:NPOV (heck, a general cleanup would be good), that is not a valid reason for deletion (nor is lack of notability in itself), and the problem could probably be best solved with some cleanup tags; there's a lot in the article that could be re-used. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Air_Traffic_Flight_Simulation_Network; much of that could also apply to IVAO. --Scott Wilson 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete pending evidence of notability. I agree that the article isn't speediable and isn't blatantly promotional. Google shows lots of hits, but in the first five pages of listings I saw zero media coverage except flight-sim niche sites (I'm not sure any pass the reliable-sources guidelines except as supporting material) and Wikipedia mirrors. By that fifth screen there were things like one guy's user information. It's obvious that this is a group active in a number of nations, and there seems to be only one other group (VATSIM) of similar importance within the field, but I'd have to see some independent non-niche coverage before it meets WP:V. All the article's links are to the group's regional orgs, none to third-party coverage. Barno 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The revision done since my 12-Oct vote improves NPOV, but there still are no independent sources cited. No change of vote yet although the group is probably notable enough to be included. Barno 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although it should be re-written, the article is worth keeping. IVAO was founded in 1998, it is one of the largest organization of this kind, has an international user base and it is a legally existing organisation (NPO). Yrtgm 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Yrtgm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
• Keep What YRTGM said. Also there is a precedent as the VATSIM article was not deleted, yet it's a very similar organisation. I believe both articles have a place on wiki Babotika 20:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Canwolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep Article needs to be brought to a more encyclopedic style, and it would be good to have some external references, but all in all, it is notable enough to keep. - Canwolf 21:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Babotika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]
• Keep IVAO is relevant within online flight simulation. However, the field itself is rather not-notable, which explains the lack of media coverage outside the flight sim niche. Besides, I wouldn't consider Googles ranking algorithm as a good indication of relevance for any site. --airborne 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Scott Wilsons idea, I just proposed a cleaned-up edit which should be WP:NPOV compatible. Feel free to revert. --airborne 08:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IVAO is the 2nd largest organisation in online flight simulation. Mainly because of what said by airborne, Babotika and Yrtgm. TheSpecial 08:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do agree with opinion stated above, no much more to say Yownos 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with extensive rewriting. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD G4 TV Newser Tipline 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: When was it previously deleted? --Scott Wilson 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The prior deletion was speedy, so I don't see the relevance of CSD G4. Tim 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I thought. I'm just wondering if I've missed something else. I only happened across this AfD by accident after some poring over the deletion logs. --Scott Wilson 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I thought we got rid of this gamer garbage and it pops up again, but the stupid gamers come and recreate it against the rules. OBILI ® ± 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Take a look at the deletion logs. It was restored to go onto AfD (it has not been recreated). G4 technically only applies if it was deleted through an XfD process. (Also, calling things you don't like "garbage" is close to WP:CIVIL.) ColourBurst 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As above, plus I contest that G11 applies to the latest revision. --airborne 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has made it to a few newspapers in Turkey along with VATSIM: http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=94815 (others were printed papers). I think, it meets notability criteria. -levent 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This organization is equally notable as VATSIM, which remain on Wikipedia despite efforts to delete the page using most uncivil and intemperate tones. --LukeKolin 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently the gamer community has rallied, due to the owners of the gamer website asking people to save their ad. This is not right and yet another reason why this spam should be removed! OBILI ® ± 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please try to remain WP:CIVIL, especially when making accusations of meatpuppetry such as this. Of the ten keep votes, while two (Yrtgm and Yownos) have only edited this page, VATSIM's AfD and the IVAO article, the others have been active since at least August and at least five (Canwolf, TheSpecialist, Airodyssey, İLevent and myself) are established users according to the '100-edit' rule of thumb at WP:SOCK. You'll get much farther if you try to counter the substance of users' edits, rather than trying to smear them. Kudos for putting the template up, though. This is certainly the sort of situation where meatpuppetry could happen, even if it isn't happening as much as you allege just now. --Scott Wilson 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Your negative attitude and ignorance of facts is suspicious. Maybe You were one of the eSkyWorld people? Yrtgm 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:NPA. OBILI ® ± 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting websites. Ponch's Disco 05:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• IVAO is more than a website. It is a network of servers to simulate air traffic. -levent 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the notability requirements are guidelines, not policy. That means that, where there is a clear case for doing so, it is perfectly alright to ignore them. It seems that there is such a case here. Cynical 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cynical, not all of our guidelines can be one-size-fits-all, no harm in the retainment of this article. Yamaguchi先生 02:54, 22 October 2006

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.