Talk:FlightGlobal

Speedy Deletion
I like to contest the speedy deletion request which states does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject At first glance winning a business website of the year award is notable. It is an important resource in the aerospace industry and the archive feature is an important resource for many wikipedia articles. I think a clean-up tag would have been more appropriate on a two-year-old article to let interested editors and the aviation project improve the article. If the deletion tag is removed it will give us time to improve the references, nothing stopping the proposer coming back in a few weeks and proposing the article for deletion if they still not happy. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Flightglobal's online archive is truly notable, in that it provides continuous coverage of the development of aviation from 1909 to the present day and a remarkable photographic archive. This is a unique global resource. I would have no problem, however, if the contents here were merged with Flight International, with a redirect from Flightglobal.com. Would that be OK? --TraceyR (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly OK to keep it as a separate article! One inappropriate speedy, promptly opposed by at least three editors, is no reason to change anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto to the three other editors above... Just my 2 cents here, as in the case of Jane's Information Group and Jane's Defence Weekly, the distinction is clearly there for us to see so I would not propose to merge Flightglobal.com with Flight International. Another thing, I'm very perplexed as to why the nominator is so oblivious to the above facts and had not made any attempt to discuss the issue here before nominating it for speedy? Correct me if I'm wrong but this whole speedy thing is really an unproductive waste of our precious time when we can better use it for improving Wikipedia instead. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked the nominator to explain his reasoning here. --TraceyR (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not question the WikiSeagulls! Now see what you've done? "Unique" is tagged as dubious, yet have they cited any example to show that it's not unique? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith I have tagged the word "unique" as requiring a citation, I have NOT said it is dubious? To describe something as "unique" is quite an extraordinary statement and it requires backing up with a reliable secondary reference. Kind regards  Teapot  george Talk  16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you not think to check the references already in place, or do you have a problem with "unique" being used as a synonym for "unmatched"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to edit a neutrally worded encyclopedia and you have cited directly from the company NOT a secondary source. Just sounds rather promotional and spammy.  Teapot  george Talk  16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'd read that as Thomas and not realised that it was indeed a press release from Reed.
 * That besides, Tracey has a good point - they go back to "the dawn of aviation". There are only a handful of sources going that far back, none of the others are still extant in anything resembling their original form, and only Flight has such an archive online, free and so easily accessible. If anyone is going to claim that it's not unique, the onus is really on them to show the counter-example. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the sky blue? Is there another aviation archive older than Flightglobal's? --TraceyR (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The nature of commentary on websites is such that it is rarely found in offline publications. However, this online analysis by Ludo Van Vooren in his Aerospace eBusiness blog is very instructive. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The link provided by LeadSongDog includes the statement: "I then looked at the online presence for each company, analyzing the “public” side of each publisher. ... What quickly emerged ... is that Flight Global dominates the online audience in every category." (my emphasis). IMO that translates to "notable" and definitely not something to be deleted, speedily or not. Anyway, the original nominator has provided no justification for the nomination, so let's ignore it and get on with something productive. --TraceyR (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to just ignore the Speedy deletion nomination too, except that it was by an admin with an apparent history of sucvh nominations, per the notes on his talk page. - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is surprising. In this case it looks more like a fly-by-nomination than something an admin would do. By the same token, he has no strong reason for deletion, and hasn't responded here, so I'm sure that it can be ignored. --TraceyR (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unique unmatched
I have removed the word "unique" and then the word "unmatched" The source is a press release and we don't need promotional words like unique or unmatched in neutrally written encyclopedia.Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is either term inaccurate or excessive? There are no other photo archives of flight that have the depth or long duration of the Flight archive. Adjectives are not inherently unencyclopedic! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about removing the adjective and just adding a sentence something like "There are no other photo archives of flight that have the depth or long duration of the Flight archive"? Brycehughes (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the WP policy that states "Adjectives must not be used"? You appear to have confused puffery and reality: if you have any indication that this is not the only photo archive of comparable status, then neither should be applied. If the phrase would be acceptable, then so would the adjective be – and it's better and clearer copywriting that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, keep your adjective then. Sheesh... Brycehughes (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

COI tag (September 2021)
Flight Global Marketing Team is a major contributor to this article (WP:COI) LukeWWF (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Flight Global vs Flight International
We already have an article on Wikipedia detailing the history of Flight International (since 1909, oldest continuously published, yada, yada), so I don't see how Flight Global can also be credited with all that; they are merely the latest publishers. Further, the archive library is no longer available unless you pay a subscription. The article should focus on Flight Global, and their particular achievements. I'm not sure yet exactly what editing is required to render that. WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)