Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight Memory


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Flight Memory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. Plenty of links to competitors but no coverage of the software itself. Nothing found on search apart from flight discussion board posts. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I don’t think this piece of software is notable, but I wonder if there might be any value in renaming the article to Flight tracking software or something, since it already makes reference to the main ones and could be expanded on that basis. I’m not sure though whether there would be sufficient RIS for that either as they mostly seem to be discussed on forum sites. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non notable subject and lack of sources to support the content claimed. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, sketchy references, "no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2019 (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.