Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Virtual Aviation Organisation (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Per WP:V, a core policy, "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This valid concern raised by the nominator is not addressed by any of the "keep" opinions. Neither the number of members of the organisation nor the outcome of any previous AfD have anything to do with the problem that the article lacks reliable third-party sources. Consequently, the "keep" opinions are not taken into account when closing this AfD. On the other hand, the "delete" opinions address the sourcing problem and conclude that the sources given in the article are inadequate. That is the sort of policy-based reasoning required for an informed consensus. As a result, the article is deleted. It can be restored after a draft with adequate sources is submitted to WP:DRV.  Sandstein  08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

International Virtual Aviation Organisation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Delete. Non-notable organisation/website sourced largely from the website itself. It seems that WP editors are keen internet gamers leading to a number of articles about the gaming community. WP is for what is notable and not for what we like. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. While I do agree the article needs more sourcing, IVAO is a virtual online community with over 100,000 members. It is disturbing that these Microsoft Flight Simulator communities are being nominated for deletion. They are real, because you haven't heard about them, doesn't mean they are not real. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says it is approx 10,000 members. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is volunteers. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair enough. Would you care to give a valid guideline or policy to support your Keep vote?  "It's real" isn't one.   Ravenswing  15:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. No mention of the organization in secondary coverage is given in the article, nor found in my brief search. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note:This is actually IVAO's 4th AFD, it seems the nom' didn't realize that, see here and here. It seems we are just beating a dead horse. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it seems the Twinkle did not pick up the third nomination. Ahh, the page name change fooled Twinkle! Note that two of the previous debates resulted in a no consensus so the horse is not dead yet. Also, given that an AfD is only a snapshot of a small pool of the total number of editors there is nothing wrong with retesting the waters with a new AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Past AfDs indicate no community consensus to delete, and there have been no significant changes in the article or in policy in the interim. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per user DustFormsWords. - Elmao (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - article provides only trivial independent verification, and no significant coverage. No sign of the "lots of scanned articles" mentioned 3 years ago. No prejudice against recreation should these printed publication sources turn up and prove to be substantial. Marasmusine (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete mostly self-sourced and the few external mentions only prove existance not notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Editors in the third nomination for deletion compared this article to the Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network (VATSIM) article, stating that that if IVAO was not notable, then VATSIM was not notable. The VATSIM had a dozen secondary references in 2009 and now the article has two dozen. That is proof of notability. This article does not mee the standard of significant secondary coverage. My determination remains DELETE. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (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.