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. This is one of the debates where it's all based on strength of arguments; the keep !votes were based on WP:USEFUL and sources that were not reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optifly[edit]

Optifly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

nn website; alexa rank 1,184,642. EWJNK (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - useful travel site for determining low cost carriers and most direct flight routes; reviewed favorably in numerous blogs and online publications and thus likely to succeed commercially. Dcteas17 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point out some of these online publications? Making a judgment on its likelihood of future success is a bit of crystalballing. -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the crystalballing. Still should be kept in my opinion...

• http://www.travelbison.com/travel-hints/holidays/optifly-visualise-your-flight-path.html
• http://www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/22260
• http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/new-travel-web-site-offers-revolutionary-tool-for-searching-and-planning-flights-97013.php

It's hard to imagine any relatively new tool meeting the criteria for an article based solely on its Alexa rank and whether or not CNN has covered it. But people looking at the site seem to think it's a viable alternative to other flight-searching options, and it's certainly novel for its use of the Google Earth/Maps engine. Dcteas17 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's newness is certqainlty a bar to notability. And when it matures and become notable, then it would be appropriate to have an article. Of the three links oyou'[ve posted, (1) is a travel site without any clear indocation that it is a reliable source, (2) is a user posted comment in an online newspaper forum, and (3) is a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my position. An individual cannot easily be the judge of whether a travel website or press release is a "reliable source." Your vehemence in insisting upon this article's expulsion, as well as your initial demand for a justification of my vote, causes me to question your motivations. This article isn't about someone's best friend or favorite restaurant. Wikipedia will not be any better or reputable without the article. As reporter Andrew Lih commented when criticizing deletionists, "The preference now is for excising, deleting, restricting information rather than letting it sit there and grow." I say let the article expand and grow. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vehemently demanding its explusion; I am requesting reliable sources covering the subject which is in keeping with an AFD discussion. And questioning the sources is part of this discussion. Certainly, a press release is not a reliable source when it comes to the establishment of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So when the President of the United States of America makes a press release, that's not reliable information? What about if GE makes a press release saying they are developing a new engine? Or if a Wall Street firm makes a press release stating they are offering a new class of investments? Your claim requires an extremely slippery slope of "reliability" or "significance" for press releases, with the only possible resolution an arbitrarily made cutoff. But I'm not going to argue this more with you, as it's largely a greater discussion of Wikipedia policy than anything that pertains to this article itself. Let the other users who vote and administrators decide. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. If I put out 500 press releases about myself, regardless of how truthful they are, that does not make me notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this is a discussion about greater Wikipedia policy. Not this article. Let's stop filling this page with a fruitless discussion of a much bigger topic. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep http://www.travelbison.com/travel-hints/holidays/optifly-visualise-your-flight-path.html. I also know that National Geographic Adventure is considering mentioning Optifly as a new travel planning contender in an article due out in August. BenWalsh3—Preceding unsigned comment added by BenWalsh3 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — BenWalsh3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.