Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airliners.net


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Airliners.net
Vanity for a semi nnwebsite with little facts and more advertising to it --Reid A. 09:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article maybe badly written, but the site itself is a popular place for planespotters to get / exchange pictures of aircraft, airports and the like.  I'm not an airplane nut, but I've still heard of it and visit occasionally.   Jamie 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep – A very popular site which deserves a mention here. News from within the aviation world often appears first there. Also the faked picture of a man on the WTC just before impact Tourist guy used a photo stolen from the Airliners.net database here Dave 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment-Really needs a better article for this entry then, as all that this one is, is advertising.71.3.123.8 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Alexa rating is: 2,251, so this site has enough visitors to be more notable than the nominator claims. Article also doesn't look overly promotional or full of praise. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known site, should be inproved, not deleted Prodego  talk  21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this article should be edited, not deleted. At least post a message saying the article needs to be cleaned up or something. --Mohaas05


 * Strong Keep; very well-known and popular aviation site. Good Alexa rank, and I believe the assertion of forum membership. May need editing to be less promotional, but it's a notable site. MCB 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Alexa ranking. Jendeyoung 02:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.