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. The policy based argument is the one aboutr sourcing tomeet N and the keep side have provided only assertions or arguments to avoid. Spartaz Humbug! 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YS Flight Simulation System 2000[edit]

AfDs for this article:
YS Flight Simulation System 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify content and notability, despite thorough attempts over several years. Previous AfD resulted in non-consensus. Only article that can be found is a single review at Flightsim.com, which does not in itself constitute notability. Due to the inability to confirm notability, and the lack of verifiable, third-party sources - the quality of the article is very poor. I have even canvased Japanese sites without identifying any. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going with delete. It should be notable based on the mass of the fanbase, but I can't seem to find enough information on it. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is good that you found information about YS FlightSim through the article, this article doesn't have any verifiable assertion of notability. It won a code award once, but the award itself was very local and neither the award or any of the other recipients are listed on this Wikipedia or the Japanese one. The article cannot be improved and pretty much all the content needs to be deleted as it is either original research or sourced entirely from the YS FlightSim website. As it says in the comment below this box... "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." As it stands this article isn't an encyclopedia article, it reads like a game guide as you noted yourself. Over the past several years I have tried rescuing the article along with several other flightsim ones. I have succeeded with those, but not with this. If we could find something, we can bring the article back - but I really just can't find anything that even asserts notability. Even flightsim sites such as Flightsim.com and Avsim.com have next to nothing on it. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is one of those things which is very much in the eye of the beholder. For example, when you see a 'local' award, I see an award which is now defunct, but which nevertheless came from the Todai, one of the most important universities in the world, and was 'local' only insofar as it was local to a major first world country with a thriving video game industry.
At any rate, notability is only one of the criteria by which an article can be evaluated. If an article is deemed to be 'helpful', then the notability requirement is moot. There seems no competition for this namespace on Wikipedia and the article continues to help people. Furthermore, wikipedia, as if often noted, is not a paper book, and as such has virtually infinite space so long as that space is filled with high quality and useful information.
The source of most of the information in the article comes from legitimate primary and secondary sources which can be readily checked by readers for their fidelity to information on the internet. The credibility of the YS Flight website itself is hardly in question (all the information on it seems accurate insofar as it describes the content and legal licensing of the programme) so it seems odd to consider it an illegitimate source when many other wikipedia articles are sourced to official websites, press releases and the like. Indeed, the prohibition on 'original research' is generally taken to be a prohibition against information which cannot be found in written records and, consequently, double checked by other editors. I'm not sure how sourcing information to the official website of the author violates this principle.
I understand that you have done sterling work maintaining this article and making sure that it is as accurate and complete as it can be, given the relative obscurity of the subject. I would deem it a pity to discard that work given that I myself have found it helpful in the recent past.
Dreadnought1906 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your points are fair and well made, but outside of the wikipedia consensus regarding notability (see WP:NOTE). My opinion is that there is a base level of notability/verifability that needs to be met before one can make a serious attempt at getting a decent article up. Without that, it is too difficult to correctly balance the article and ensure the record of information can be maintained. I can't see anywhere that consensus has been achieved on wikipedia that an article being "helpful" suddenly makes notability a moot point. While I can appreciate your argument that there is no competition on namespace at wikipedia, the consensus has always been that an article must be notable, and notability is presumed when significant third party coverage exists. What is notable about YS Flight simulation? The award was not covered in any local press, nor international press, at the time. Flight simulation has been covered significantly in nearly all over areas. The best argument that I can find for keeping it, is that it ought to be notable because its free, and its cool. I think that's a real stretch. Nobody has yet made an assertion of notability, and that is needed to have the article in the first place let alone develop it into something meaningful. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I raised, and the reason I raised the AfD is because there is no established notability, through verifiable sources (or otherwise). If you can provide any examples, sources, or other rational for why the article is important/notable - I am sure we would all agree that the article should be kept. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What content are you actually thinking should be merged? None of it is verifiable, and the only sources are primary so merging would be original research. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content which is sourced is verifiable (there are swaths which are not sourced) but does not meet the notability requirements. Do you not agree that there is sufficient verifiable content for inclusion of a short paragraph, or even a single line, on this product at the Amateur flight simulation article? (maybe I should answer that myself on your behalf and say "of course not"?) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem is that the sources used are unreliable. Based on the sources in the article, no, not even a single line should be added to the other article. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does marginally meet notability, it's a known flight simulation out on the internet. It does, however, have severe writing problems, but those can be fixed. I say keep, notability is reached. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how it marginally meets notability? Please read the guideline on Notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (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.
More