Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NYCAviation


 * 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   no consensus. References to reliable sources have been produced, but no agreement here as to whether they satisfy WP:GNG. Closing without prejudice against renomination. Skomorokh 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NYCAviation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Website that does not meet notability standards. References provided are either from the site itself, or merely mention the site in passing. No independent sources that recognize the notability of the site itself. Appears to promote the site. (Contested PROD, removed without comment by original author.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This website is mentioned and featured in very notable publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, etc, as referenced/linked in the article. These articles do not merely mention NYCAviation in passing, but instead spotlight the website. Local and national news sources cite and syndicate articles from this website on a weekly basis, and use the site as a resource for aviation news.--Mellyrose (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: The references provided merely mention the site in passing, usually as the occupation of the website owner. They do not spotlight the website at all. As for your other comments, please provide proof. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. The articles are really either about planespotting or the Concorde, and cite/quote Mr. Lerner as someone a little more than a man on the street, a little less than a true expert.  They're establishing his credibility within their stories, but they're not about him or NYCAviation.  One of the British sources only mentions him, and not the site at all.
 * Perhaps merging some of the information, along with other aviation-enthusiast websites,into the planespotting article would be a possibility? Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: How are these articles (following) not about the website entirely, or Derner as an expert on this topic? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/nyregion/thecity/11plane.html and  http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2007/04/02/070402ta_talk_blum  (if the NYT link asks you to log in, you can bypass that by googling "Overhead the Objects of Their Affection" for a direct link in.


 * This website has been up and running as a leading source for 6 years, not just a clubhouse for random discussion. Phil Derner is approached by media all over the country for expert opinions regarding planespotting, and he himself works as an airline controller/dispatcher for a commercial airline. I believe this article is a long time coming. Also, it wouldn't make sense to merge into planespotting, since NYCAviation is much more than just about that. It is a airline news website first and foremost. --Mellyrose (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think Dermer would probably be more suited for an article than the website. Maybe you would want to do this article again with him as the subject and a section about the website? Think about it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply: Regarding the suggestion for an exclusive article on Derner, if it weren't for NYCAviation, what else can be said about him except non-notable, irrelevant/personal things? Also, even though he is the owner, and frequently approached regarding topics, it is still a community and people know it internationally and use it as a resource. This just doesn't make sense. The website is absolutely noteworthy and well-known in its arena. I honestly don't understand what the discrepancy is.--Mellyrose (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if he has no standing within the aviation community beyond the website itself, then you may be right that he is not notable enough on his own. But I still don't thinkthe site is notable enough in general terms, which what is required for Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * He is notable for NYCAviation.com, and VERY well known for that within the aviation community. Though, this is moot since the article is not about him, it's about the website, which as I've statd before is also very well known. If you were to go onto Airliners.net and ask any single member if they know exactly what NYCAviation is, I guarantee at least 95% of them would answer yes, and a good portion of them are members as well. Who is this decision ultimately up to? Up to this point, this is based solely on Realkyhick's opinion. I think more feedback is needed.--Mellyrose (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being well-known by members at another website by no means supports a case for notability at Wikipedia. If that were the case, thousands of fan-sites and other purpose-specific sites would then be notable. But I also think more feedback is needed. Please be advised, though, that attempting to recruit support on another web site or forum for one side or the other in an AfD discussion is not allowed, and evidence of such action will tend to work against that side in the eyes of administrators. See this policy. (I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you might not be familiar with this policy since you are relatively new to Wikipedia.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't implying that support should be gained from the other website, I was just citing yet another example of its notability. You seem to be contradicting yourself. I am familiar with the policies, and have/had no intentions of trying to recruit anyone, as I don't believe that is necessary to prove NYCAviation's validity.--Mellyrose (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added more citations to the NYCAviation article, including a book which cites NYCA as an authority on the hobby of plane spotting. I have also massaged some of the language so it reads less as an advertisement. It should be noted that as it is currently written, the NYCAviation article now contains more encyclopedic references from print and mass media than any other wikipedia article regarding websites or communities in the aviation hobbyist/professional space, including the largest in Airliners.net and FlyerTalk. Also, when judging the quality of these references in regards to NYCA's notability, it should also be noted that NYCAviation is not only a website but a community of hobbyists, and that the articles (particularly the NY Times and New Yorker stories), while not discussing the nuts and bolts of the website itself, do focus on the community that the website has forged. Picklebarrel (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete one of many such spotters websites but after many tens of years interest in aviation I have never heard of it. Certainly not in the same league as airliners.net or scramble. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What is scramble? In all fairness, you are not in the USA, and while the website often reaches an international audience, it doesn't specifically cater to it. Also, Airliners' Wikipedia article only has 4 references, 3 of which only link to the actual website, which is considered self promotion in the land of Wikipedia, and therefore not significant enough to make it noteworthy. This comparison is only being made at this point, since you are now saying NYCAviation is not in the same league as Airliners, yet NYCAviation has 14 references, 11 of which are external. This article is well-composed and significantly backed-up by legitimate resources online and offline.--Mellyrose (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scramble is apparently a printed magazine. Frankly, I don't think it is notable, either, so I am nominating it for deletion as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because it is not in the "same league" as Airliners.net should not necessarily preclude it from being included in Wikipedia. First off, it fills a completely different niche within the aviation enthusiast community. Airliners is first and foremost a photo database, and while there is a message board and a few news headlines, that is hardly the focus of the site. NYCA is a community and information sharing site with no interest in being like Airliners, but it does a fine job of coexisting with it and filling gaps left by Airliners and other aircraft photo databases. Second, just because NYCA is not quite as well known does not mean it is not well known. Picklebarrel (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the NYT and New Yorker articles look in-depth enough for me, and the first at least discusses the site rather than just Derner. Close, but I think it scrapes through the notability test.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:16, 17 August 2009 (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.