Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter community

Non-notable web community. You should have seen the huge list of external links I deleted. RickK 08:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Andris 08:25, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the group must be mentioned, it can be done so in the Orbiter (game) article. Livajo 09:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rather merge with Orbiter (game). MDCore 10:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some questions from the newbie:
 * how do you measure whether community is notable or not?
 * how many people are in the above-mentioned community?
 * if Orbiter is itself included in the wiki why not some information about the people who develop it?

All external links have been deleted pending the resolution of the status of the article


 * Comment: it does not make sense to include sucha a big article directly in the Orbiter (game) article
 * The "Community sites" section could be merged into the "external links" section of the Orbiter (game) article, but I do not think we need to move all those links over as Wikipedia is not a link repository - a few example should suffice. And do we need a bullet-type list of notable persons (of whom one is mentioned in the opening paragraph already)? Anyway, the Orbiter (game) article is not that long - I've seen longer - it can handle the additional information. But please do not write individual articles about the "notable persons" (with the possible exception of Martin Schweiger), unless they are notable outside of the community as well. --Elf-friend 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Ccomment: after all Orbiter (game) article is about the Orbiter - the creation of Martin Schweiger not about people building third-party add-ons ...
 * But mentioning third-party add-ons inside Orbiter (game) is relevant. MDCore 10:41, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - as Livajo said, if the community is so large and notable, the information should go into the main Orbiter (game) article - we don't have Quake community or Starcraft community articles, and I suppose these communities are a bit larger... -- Ferkelparade &pi; 10:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Problem is, if this one gets through, we will probably get a Harry Potter community, Lord of The Rings community, Dungeon and Dragons community etc. Which, in turn, opens the door to articles about fanclubs. Maybe I'm being paranoid here, but ... --Elf-friend 19:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my point - sorry, maybe I was a bit unclear on this. We should not have Quake community or Starcraft community articles, and in consequence we should definitely have no Orbiter community article. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A better analogy would be to compare it to the microsoft flight simulator community. While there is no article under that name, there are articles for avsim.com and Simviation.com. Both of those seem to be sites which provide functions similar to what is being described in the article, add-ons, place for people to talk about their interests, etc. I'm not saying that its the same thing, but it fits better than a quake community or something. --Aqua 06:03, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - game communities are not encyclopedic - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ - Orbiter is not a game - it's a very realistic simulation 0.39
 * I agree that orbiter is not a "game" in the traditioal sense, and i also agree that orbiter is totally cool and great fun to spend a couple of hours with - but that still doesn't make its community notable enough for its own article. Wikipedia is not about what I find cool, but about what's encyclopedic -- Ferkelparade &pi; 23:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Realistic simulation" communities are not encyclopedic. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)