Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Virtual ATC

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Virtual ATC

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

Delete. Non-notable on-line gaming community website largely sourced from the website itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this article. It contains even less sources that Boston Virtual ATC and many are broken links, and from it's own site. It has remained an article for years. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must also note, it is not about the website but the server it hosts with over 2800 registered members. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To support the article in which I created; It is not about a non-notable community at all, there are over 2,800 members what use this game server. It is extremely simialar to communities like VATSIM and IVAO. It deserver's it's rightfull place here at Wikipedia. Just like VATSIM it provides ATC to pilots who log onto their game server. I don't see why everyone want's to delete it so badly, there is nothing wrong with it, infact there are many articles about places much less popular that have thier place here. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion for this encyclopaedia. Notability is. Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other sources have now been added, and it seems user CaptinJosh is rewriting/fixing the article. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete - All the sources seem to be primary sources or otherwise don't even attempt to indicate that this gaming subgroup is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Must it be recognized by CNN to be notable? It is just like VATSIM etc, Millions upon millions of people own Flight Simulator X, anyone who chooses to use the mutliplayer function of the Game will come face to Face with Boston Virtual ATC. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It must be documented in depth by independent sources to be notable, yes. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all of you that want this article to be deleted, let me note one thing. Before I created the article; I drafted it in my user space. It was looked at by several admin's and other users before being submitted. It took me two weeks to draft, write, revise, review, and publish this article. While I understand why you guys want it to be deleted, is there anything else that can be done besides deletion? It's not like the article is a paragraph long, it is a full article. Thanks Everyone. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note To Closer: Can the AFD be extended/relisted to form a clearer consensus please. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been working on this article to satisfy neutrality and notability guidelines. I am working quickly to remove all seemingly-biased statements while obtaining reliable secondary sources to support the article. Initial progress was slow while I studied both policies and developed a strategy for compliance. Having progressed through the learning curve, edits will be timelier with completion expected in the near term. Might these efforts justify a temporary delay if relisting discussions prompt deletion before I have completed the final version?Captjosh (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and userfy to Tofutwitch11 or Captjosh, or whoever wants it. As of now, the article lacks non-trivial reliable sources. Of the citations it does have, the majority do not meet WP:RS criteria, half the them linking to the subject's online page. But I wouldn't oppose userfying the article for one of the above keep editors to work on.--resident (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started it; userfy it to me and I will let Captjosh edit it. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - userfy it, sure, but if want to become notable, get yourself written up in RS. Yakushima (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've userfyed it here. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (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.