Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SKYbrary (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   keep. Mr.Z-man 04:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

SKYbrary
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article does not assert notability. Speedy deletion (recreation of deleted material) was declined. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why an aviation industry wide initiative may not be mentioned on wikipedia. People interested in aviation safety should be able to learn about this initiative and find it. It is not just another website, it is respected by the industry and authorative bodies like ICAO, FSF, ... Knowledge Hunter (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems notable, simply lacking in sources. Why would this be speedy deleted?  It seems notability concerns do not fall under speedy delete criteria. Vrefron (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources were taken care of, thanks for the input. Knowledge Hunter (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability concerns are not one of the speedy deletion criteria recreation of deleted material is. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First deletion was based on the argument that it lacked sources. It was deleted before I could take care of that. So I needed to recreate what was deleted. This time I included sources. So I'm wondering what the arguments for the second deletion are? It seems other editors (Aktsu and Vrefron) do not agree with the submission for deletion, so what's next? Knowledge Hunter (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion will run for five days, after which time an admin will consider the arguments and opinions that editors have made here, and weigh up whether they consider that consensus has been reached to delete the article, or whether it should remain. HAve a look at the main Articles for deletion page for more information. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers Mr Lofty from Kent, Best wishes, Knowledge Hunter from Amsterdam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.109.79 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but add article issues tag WikiScrubber (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why a "weak keep"? Until now I improved the article based on editors' arguments. What are the remaining issues? Thanks! Knowledge Hunter (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2008 (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.