Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precision Manuals Development Group (3rd 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. slakr \ talk / 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Completing on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. I note for the record that the previous debates (July 2008 and Sept 2013) both ended in No Consensus results. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My rationale: After deleting the unreliable source (AVsim), and removing another which only had passing coverage (Salon), this article is left with only what I would consider to be TWO RS's - PC Pilot (though it itself doesn't have an article despite being the largest PC air simulation circulation), and the WSJ. Doesn't pass WP:GNG in my view. 75.185.34.253 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Two sources -- and, both not having the company as the focus. The coverage in the first one is good to supplement GNG and second provides a mention. I can't find any extra coverage. And I don't see how this yet passes WP:GNG/WP:CORP with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Most of the reliable sources review their games including awards , but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Last AfD had basically 1 participant and first AfD mostly presented sources for products' reviews rather than for the company itself. (While I personally feel many companies should have additional notability criteria if their products are highly reviewed/acclaimed, this is currently not in any guidelines.) —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the company may not have been the primary subject of reliable sources, its products have. Like the Kalypso Media AFD, I think it's better that readers are served with a list of their products rather than a blank. - hahnch e n 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, that's the best you can do for significant coverage? Fully 98% of those links are from ONE source, while another is an online store.  That doesn't establish notability in my book.  75.185.34.253 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those links are from one source because the search was targeted to one source. Here's a similar search across the flightsim.com domain  - hahnch e n 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a stretch, because WP:USERG clearly states that webforums (of which FlighSim has) are not acceptable as sources. 65.24.59.12 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Umm... Sorry Google says otherwise, it's notable enough for me and WP:GNG is not even a problem for me. AldNon Ucallin?☎ 02:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sourcing is extremely weak, and there is no mainstream coverage. Thousands of Ghits from mostly one source doesn't pass GNG in my book.  65.24.59.12 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - This was a close call, but ultimately, this fails CORP. I deleted one reference from the article because it was a 404 (and in any case, linked back to the company's own web site).  The PC Pilot references talk about specific products, not the company itself, and are perfunctory listings anyway.  The Salon reference only mentions the company in passing.  That leaves us with the Wall Street Journal article, which certainly meets at least some of the requirements of CORP.  The WSJ piece is primarily about the company, goes into depth, and is obviously in a respected mainstream publication.  The problem is, it's just one source, and CORP says, A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.  Find us one more reference of similar quality to the WSJ article, and this is a keeper.  But, lacking that, it doesn't meet the bar.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My !vote for keep above acknowledges that the sources address the products and not the company, it was keep nonetheless because the content of the article could just be moved to List of PMDG products, which was similarly suggested at the Kalypso Media AFD. - hahnch e n 16:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there actually multiple products? I got the impression there is basically one product, which comes in a bunch of model-specific variations.  The graphics, controls, flight dynamics, etc, may all differ from model to model, but they're all just airplane plugins for a flight simulator platform.  Not that this is critical to this discussion; a single-product company could certainly be notable enough to merit an article, but that notoriety needs to be demonstrated by multiple independent sources, which I don't see.    -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also trying to figure out how, We could move this to some other title, similar to a suggestion somebody made on another AfD, adds up to an argument for keeping this? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They make digital model airplanes. The links above show you reviews of the different the airplanes they make.  The argument works for both articles, because if you recast the content as a list instead of an article, it would fulfil WP:CSC. - hahnch e n 17:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to the WSJ article, here is an in-depth length interview at flightsim.com with the founder that talks about the company and its developers. I consider flightsim.com to be a reliable source. These two sources are enough for marginal notability according to WP:GNG, and other sources, such as IGN's PMDG page listing their products just adds to that. The article could be made a bit less promotional, but that is a matter of editing, not deletion. A marginally notable company and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't fit for WP:GNG. IGN entry is a routine catalog entry (as with any other company they have on record) and isn't suitable for notability at all. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does WP:GNG mention interviews. WP:PRIMARY does not mention interviews either. Interviews are mentioned in a footnote on that page, where it says "Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews;...", so it depends. For the purposes of establishing notability, the context in this case is that an independent reliable source, recognized as an authority in the field, took the effort to interview the company founder and publish it; there is the presumption of basic fact checking. I stand by my assertion that this RS contributes to notability. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Apart from that game, this group has little relevance.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and/or redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X per Jeff5102. When/if better tertiary sources emerge that better establish notability per WP:CORP the article can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:35, 7 February 2014 (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.