Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tscroot/sandbox/Foreflight

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Moved to Draft:Foreflight. No real problem in keeping all the history together. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Tscroot/sandbox/Foreflight


References are highly questionable. Notability itself is questionable. Article is written like company product catalog. It might do something different but to be here need to be something more. Uniqueness alone cant be part of notability. Not enough coverage. Light2021 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Opinions about references seem highly subjective... what is questionable about using a company's own website as a source for information about the company? On the contrary, writing style is neutral. Company is a notable; the company is already mentioned on an active Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system... does a mention on another article not constitute notability? ForeFlight has 144,000 Google hits, 980 on Google News, and has been featured in major aviation industry publications. It's notable, though the article may fail to convey its notability, but wouldn't doing so make it sound more like a "company product catalog?" Lastly the article was based on content and structure of similar companys' approved Wikipedia entries, so claiming this one does not meet a standard that other articles have been approved for is groundless. Tscroot (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * From Light2021's user page: "I am here to make the Wikipedia What Truly it is? what it stands for? Definitely not some place for companies or people to place their own content for their own promotion and gratification. In the past you missed lots of companies and people to be verified or tested the water of authenticity. Here it is. I am here to put the Light on it. No More Self Promotion or past wont be spared if missed. Go to your blog to write the self -Nonsense. This is Wikipedia.


 * Wikipedia is not some people or company directory where people can list themselves or their companies for purpose of being on Wikipedia and nothing else.


 * Notability clearly states the companies, people or any events should be on Wikipedia because they are enough notable to be covered by independent media not once, twice or repeated popular media but they should have been covered by various media significantly.


 * Wikipedia is becoming Blog-Spot or some content medium to write about themselves or their insignificant startups or companies who just got coverage because they got seed funding from notable investors or either started by some elite family. These startups comes from Tech background and knows almost everything about how to be on Wikipedia either by listing themselves by few media coverage or being missed by community because there are few only who can manage it. and definitely its not possible to verify each and every articles intensively."


 * Clearly Light2021 has an agenda against companies on Wikipedia and sees him/herself as an agent against commercial entities. I agree that Wikipedia should not be used for shameless commercial promotion but Light2021 is trying to make ForeFlight (a company with which I am not affliated), which is a legitimate, sizeable, notable, and well-covered enterprise, pay for the sins of others who were not. Perhaps ForeFlight does not seem notable to Light2021 because its notability is mainly in the specific niche of aviation. Tscroot (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete I agree with Light2021.--JJBers (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment This is just a userspace draft. I tossed the appropriate template on there just now. It hasn't had a lot of recent activity but I'm not certain deleting it is warranted given where it is. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Moreover, there is now also Draft:Foreflight, created by the same user. No need to keep multiple copies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Draft:Foreflight. The history is of actual drafting, and earlier versions of extant pages should not be deleted.  History merge would be overkill.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.