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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Article already more than sufficiently referenced. Take any objections about specific sources to the Talk page. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Poorly sourced, and makes no verifiable claim of notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An article has been written about this network in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [1]. The fact that it has 100,000 registered users and the fact that it is used by aspiring pilots at home seems to make this quite a unique project. Alexa confirms that it has been among the top 60,000 websites in terms of traffic, suggesting that it is quite popular. Cambrasa confab 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Where are you coming up with this figure of "100,000 registered users"? There are no reliable sources in the article that mention this. Getting a mention in a local paper isn't a fantastic way to assert notability, but is it mentioned in the article? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This figure (actually 109,000) is from the article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (see above). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a large newspaper with a circulation similar to The Independent (a major UK national newspaper). I would certainly deem it a reliable source. Also, Vatsim didn't simply get a brief mention, but a whole article was written about it. Cambrasa confab 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - if that's the case, then why is it not cited in the article? The article still isn't really asserting its notability with reliable sources, is it? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean, it's not cited? Haven't you read this reference? Cambrasa confab 17:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd add the sources into the article if I knew anything about the subject, but I don't. Without question the Post-Gazette isn't just a local paper: it's one of America's top newspapers, and quite sufficient to be a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is it really? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article merely confirms that it is "the largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA". -- JediLofty

^{User ¦ Talk} 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a circulation of 213,000 a day. That certainly makes it one of the larger newspapers.--Cambrasa confab 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We've tried deleting the article for VATSIM THREE times? Google scholar link to all the published papers about vatsim, coverage from the top blog for academic gaming researchers, some more, throwaway comment from wired's blog, google books including a mention in Ted Castronova's book about virtual worlds. Wow. Never thought this would come up for deletion. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm also going to challenge the afd nominator's claim that the article presents no notability. The article right now is unchanged from when the deletion message went up. At that time, VATSIM was referenced in a major scholarly work on the subject of virtual worlds (ted castronova's book), an anthology of economics and technology articles, the WORLD's premier business newspaper (WSJ), one of the most popular technology magazines (wired), and an independent book on microsoft flight simulator. How did all that get ignored and the article's notability somehow come down to whether or not Pittsburgh's paper of record was big enough? Explain to me what definition of notability merits this article's deletion. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not of major notability - but it is notable in it's own right. - Rehnn83 ^Talk 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - How many times are we going to keep going around and around on this article? Since when are the Wall Street Journal and Wired not notable? Tim (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (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.