Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YS Flight Simulation System 2000


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

YS Flight Simulation System 2000

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

Notability is not asserted, nor have any references supporting notability been found that meet requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Despite an extensive search since September 2007, we have not been able to improve the situation at all. Many edits to the article are completely unverifable, in addition to the notability problems. We could prune the article down to the stub yet it would still have no assertion of notability nor references to back that up. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While a fan of freeware games myself, if there's no notability to be found despite extensive research, it should be deleted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can't find much in the english language to go towards showing notability. is the nearest I can find, and I'm not convinced about the reliability of Unziana.com. There are a number of Japanese language hits,  for example (translation) looks stronger, but could only be a publisher's description for all I know. What do you think? Marasmusine (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have been torn over this one for a while, but every time I have gone to review the article I haven't found anything that I could improve it with. I'll checkout those links.  I have a friend who I get to translate Japanese for me.  I'm a fan of the freeware stuff too, FlightGear is a great article and I use that as my benchmark for freeware sim articles. Icemotoboy (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 09:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - some new citations have appeared, in particular I'm looking at the review from FlightSim.com; I'm not familiar with the site but it looks rather comprehensive with some form of editorial oversight, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. Marasmusine (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only with improvement - seems to be a poorly researched article. It is one of many, many flight sims. However, it has a potential to be well written.


 * 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.