Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Virtual Aviation Community


 * 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 for the reasons given in the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Virtual Aviation Community
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I nominate this article for deletion as follows:
 * Notability: Article fails to establish notability in that notability requires objective evidence. I have extensively researched the article and been unable to find any objective evidence establishing notability.
 * Verifiable sources: reliable sources in objective, independent media, there is a grave difficulty estabishing not only notability, but also an objective, netural, point of view.
 * Spam: The article is written in such a way that it sounds like spam or advertising, and without objective, verifiable sources, the article could not be re-written to be included on wikipedia. Please see what wikipedia is not for more information.
 * The page was successfully nominated for deletion through the Proposed Deletion process, and was undeleted by the deleting administrator at a member request.
 * That member noted that VATSIM and IVAO have pages, that member is reminded that just because something else similar exists on wikipedia, that does not automatically make it either suitable or not suitable for wikipedia.  Therefore, as the essay notes, a deletion debate should avoid discussing arguements assoicated with this. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wonderful as an advertisement, but not appropriate as an encyclopedia article.Ecoleetage (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As best as I can tell, this virtual airline has < 200 members and no news coverage, which would tend to put it below the notability bar. I disagree with the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but GVAC isn't in the same ballpark as VATSIM (150k members, according to its article) and IVAO (80k members). — PyTom (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Exactly how does an article written by the founder of the network containing nothing but history and factual data about the network qualify as an advertisement or not notable? How can one provide 3rd party cites for something that they have first hand knowledge of? If you wish verification of the information, all one has to do is look at the network homepage listed in the article. As to the size of the network, we have members joining on an almost daily basis. I would say an that a community that serves 200+ people and growing is substantial. We fulfill every service that is offered by other virtual aviation networks, the only reason we do not have the amount of members is that we have not been in service as long. I would also suggest that all these people that have found a reason to have a problem with this article are more than likely members of other networks that seem to feel threatened by anyone who is not themselves, and therefor find reasons to attack them as has been the trend in the past. Exactly what is this article hurting by being here? Nothing....so I would think that anyone who wishes to create a reason has ulterior motives. —Preceding Ryan Waldron (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)  — Ryan Waldron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Look, we aren't disputing the truth value of your claims. We are saying that wikipedia strives to include only those subjects that have been mentioned in secondary and tertiary sources of some note.  If other words, VATSIM is mentioned because ot its sustained coverage in the scholarly fields relating to aviation and gaming.  IVAO is covered, although much more marginally, for the same reasons--it is also covered partially due to the large subscription base, but that isn't a primary reason.  If your community grows to such a size that GVAC is covered in significant depth by independent sources, then the article will be welcome.  Also, Assume good faith.  Most of the editors here are NOT members of a competing virtual airline (for example, I am not).  We are just trying to shape wikipedia in a way that conforms with the five pillars.  Please also be aware that most of your arguments are not terribly persuasive.  It does less to your cause to say that you are personally related to the organization the article describes (it doesn't mean you can't edit it, but you probably shouldn't be).  Also, "it isn't hurting anything" is a poor argument.  Each page that does not meet the criteria for article creation hurts wikipedia because it lowers the image that people have of it.  If we include articles that are basically advertisements, then people will respond by going elsewhere for encyclopedic information.  Short takeaway: If you couldn't write the same article without information FROM the subject, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I do sympathize with the situation, I do think you need to carefully read through the What wikipedia is not. That document is official wikipedia policy and something a cornerstone document. The reason I nominated the article is because I am seeking to bring the level of quality of all Flight Simulation articles up to a very high standard.  I would be interested in helping, in future, create such an article.  If this was the case, we could copy the article to my (or your) user webspace until such time as it satisfied the requirements for inclusion as an article.  Please do read the link I sent regarding what Wikipedia is not, it will give you a much clearer picture of why I nominated the article for deletion, why it was successful in being proposed for deletion originally.  It will also give a clear picture of what will be required in future to satisfy inclusion of an article in wikipedia. Perhaps the best place for a link to this organization would be the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Icemotoboy (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess this just goes to show you what you get when you volunteer your personal time for a greater community online. I am still skeptical of the motives of the majority of the people opposing this article. Past history has shown that members of other networks are wholly not above attacks on anyone they see as competition in any arena. Due to the fact that wikipedia anonymizes everyone from their other actions outside his site, there is no way to prove otherwise. All I see is blind opposition to this article for no good reason. It's this fact that assures in my mind that here are ulterior motives at work beyond anything to do with wikipedia for most if not all who oppose this article. At this point I am sure that this article will be deleted....not for any valid reason, but because of the bias of those who would seek to subvert any network they don't support. It's to bad that wikipedia is not interested in protecting those who wish to provide valid content against those who would seek to discredit it for their own personal reasons.Ryan Waldron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, man, we are trying to explain the reasoning. There are clear policies that have been enacted by wikipedia and we are here to uphold those policies.  If you can bring independent, verfiable, secondary (or tertiary) sources into the article that assert the notability of the subject then no one is going to let it be deleted out of bias.  That is literally all it takes.  So once again, I'm going to suggest that you assume good faith and please look at things neutrally.  I don't know how many times I can tell you that I'm not a member of VATSIM or IVAO.  I've never owned a flight sim in my adult life (and only played A-10 Warthog on an old mac when I was young).  I have NO personal reason to reject this article.  My reasoning is clear and so is the reasoning of the other editors here.  We have linked standing policies that prohibit this kind of article.  We have shown what needs to happen to make the article acceptable.  What more do we need to do?  Remember we are all here volunterring our time to make wikipedia better.  Sometimes that means saving articles (see my user page).  Sometimes that means removing articles that don't meet the guidelines and policies set forth.  We don't usually get a thrill from it.  Trust me, I would rather see this article improved and not deleted than see it deleted and have the work go to waste.  but my wish to make it better doesn't mean that we can just keep it despite the fact that it does not meet guidelines. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no assertion of notability and no references at all in the article (there's not even a "References" section). There are a few GHits, but they all appear to be directly affiliated with the subject, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: Clear violation of WP:SPAM, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Quite aside from being unimpressed by the creator's heated assertion that no one could oppose his article save out of malice, a web forum with <200 users is quite a small online community in general terms.  In surfing to the page, the lead news note is an ominous "I thought it was time to let folks know where we stand. Though it has been a little quiet here lately, Global VAC is very much alive and well," dated back in November 2007.  The forum has had only ten posts in the month of April, and less than four hundred fifty posts to date, so I'd have to question how many of those 200 users idly surfed in and surfed right out again.   Finally, to answer the creator's plea of how can one add third party cites to something for which one has firsthand knowledge, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and if no such cites can be found, no article about the subject can remain.    RGTraynor  14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In case it wasn't clear from above. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Protonk (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   —Protonk (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (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.