Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightradar24.com (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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flightradar24.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, I don't know if there is a conflict of interest with the editors on this article, it is my initial impression. There is a complete lack of indepth information from reliable, independent, third party sources. There are a number of news links in the article, but none of these are actually on flightradar24.com -- they are all on the cancellation of flights during the 2010 Icelandic volcano eruption. Flightradar24.com is only mentioned in the credits for images which are shown on those sites. This, unfortunately, it not enough to give it notability in WP...as great a website it is, it just isn't notable in an encyclopaedic setting. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment initially had been nominated for CSD 11 by Russavia, and that CSD was removed by an IP editor who I expect was the page author. However, I didn't feel strongly enough that it was blatant advertising to either delete the page or to restore the CSD since Russavia had already expressed intent to take it to AFD when tagging it for issues. Syrthiss (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete almost passes notability, I'd say. Just not enough coverage of the site itself. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found mentions in articles and even books, but nothing that would allow anything more then a stub. Also, there are other such sites, this one is nothing special. A list of such sites would be useful or adding this site to the external sites on Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast. (In fact I think I will add it.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.