Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precision Manuals Development Group (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   no consensus. No consensus to delete; nominator complained that "article read like an advertisment" and the only other participant in the discussion cleaned up the article. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Precision Manuals Development Group
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have nominated this page as a AfD because it reads like an advertisment, and so falls under the G11 Criteria. --Bookbloxer (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, they've made Salon and the WSJ. I don't know if that means they meet whatever notability criteria. It's been improved since nom. and doesn't read like an ad anymore. — Lfdder (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am finding some coverage in the news, many reviews from Avsim.com, and a Google book result shows some hits as far as reviews go in compilation collections of the magazines FlyPast and Air Enthusiast. I started to add those, but I wasn't given a specific page on the Google Books view and I can't find the specific issue number they appeared in. PMDG's website has some reviews listed, but many of those are coming up as dead links so I can't verify how usable all of the reviews would've been. Some of them look like they might be unusable to show notability, although there are plenty of Avsim reviews. It does have some trivial mentions in various locations as being one of the best or at least as a notable example in the field, as is in the case in this book written by someone who seems to work for the German National Museum for Art and Cultural History. It's all sort of weak so far, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of delete in this instance. In any case, I removed any of the prose that might have potentially been seen as too overtly promotional and I've removed the forum sources. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Closing admins might want to look at this AfD, as this is somewhat related to that as far as deletion and notability rationale goes. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The coverage out there is slim, but the company has received multiple reviews from places considered to be a RS as far as we're concerned. Not much is out there, but it's just enough to barely squeak by notability guidelines. There is more coverage out there, but some of it isn't on the Internet for various reasons (magazines folded, pages crashed, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (gab)  @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video game-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (converse)  @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (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.