Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airnav.com
- 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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Airnav.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV and there is no clear reason why this is a notable website. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The article itself has no reference. I cannot find any sources talk about it, only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: It is very heavily cited (see Google books, Google scholar). There is a page of coverage here and a paragraph of coverage here. I imagine there is more so I suggest participants take a good look at Google books for significant coverage. C F A 💬 02:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, while CFA didn't cast a "vote" in this discussion, they have brought sources to the discussion which should be reviewed. Soft deletion doesn't seem appropriate as deletion is no longer "uncontroversial".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. There's hardly more than a passing mention to be found (who runs it? etc), but wow, the quantity of mentions in articles, journals, and websites is - in this case - informative. tedder (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*Keep. Despite the current article lacking in form and substance, that in itself does not merit deletion if the subject (i.e. the website itself) is notable for its impact—see WP:WEB and the sources that CFA and Tedder linked. With enough time and willing editors, this article could be improved beyond a stub. Jtwhetten (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The article itself may not be anything special, but the website is insanely useful for us who are in aviation, including those of us who write about airports, especially smaller general aviation airports. SouthernDude297 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agree wholeheartedly. Hard to square that against keeping NPOV but there is really no substitute for this site when it comes to general aviation. --Jtwhetten(talk) 22:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's great that you think the subject is important but have you found sources that provide SIGCOV that can establish notability? Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT: Whilst there may be a plethora of sources mentioning Airnav.com, none of them provide significant coverage of the topic itself with only passing mentions of the subject existing and no secondary sources existing. Just because it may be considered "important" by some does not mean that the subject is notable in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Updated opinion --- For benefit of the discussion (as well as my own interest in the process here) I scratched out a source assessment table. Currently this only considers the references that exist in the article as most others that I can find are only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Merry, John A. (2001). Aviation Internet Directory: A Guide to the 500 Best Web Sites. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-07-137216-9.
|
|
|
 Inclusion in a "top 500" list likely does not constitute significant coverage.
|
✘ No |
Levitt, Carole A.; Mark E. Rosch (2006). The Lawyer's Guide to Fact Finding on the Internet. American Bar Association. p. 690. ISBN 978-1-59031-671-9.
|
|
|
~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage? | ~ Partial |
Silver, H. Ward (2005). Two-Way Radios & Scanners for Dummies. For Dummies. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-7645-9582-0.
|
|
|
~ Does a summary of the website, its primary uses, benefits, and the value it provides constitute significant coverage? | ~ Partial |
|
|
|
The source does not mention the subject.
|
✘ No | |
|
|
|
The source does not mention the subject.
|
✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
Given that these "partially significant" sources are mostly summaries, it may better serve the community if this subject is integrated into the articles linked in the second sentence of this article (in the form of "this information is aggregated and freely available at AirNav.com"). I believe this satisfies GNG as well as WP:NOPAGE while keeping this subject listed on WP. I am changing my opinion to Delete. My comment above has been struck. Thanks to all for the discussion. --Jtwhetten(talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (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.