Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Virtual Aviation Organization (3rd 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 keep. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Virtual Aviation Organization

Despite two prior nominations nothing has been done to establish the notability of the subject in the article, and the article still contains no reliable sources -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80,000 members is pretty good. Wikipedia is not paper. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Membership is irrelevant. It's just a big number. Notability and reliable sources are what's important. DarkAudit (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, by the way, delete for lacking what's important there. DarkAudit (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, I must agree with above editors. I have been unable to find any reliable, third party, sources. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Membership is not irrelevant. Organisations with large groups of members are notable-- same as best sellers in books, market share in companies. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but they must still meet the verifiability policy, which this doesn't. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's explanatoin. -63.17.15.226 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) — 63.17.15.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - you want to keep, per DGGs explanation, even though the next line points out that it fails the verifiability policy? (edit - I'd just like to point out that this is the only edit 63.17.15.226 has made so far!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fairness to IP users everywhere, it is pretty hard to maintain an edit history on a dynamic IP ISP, which most people use. It's when you get a bunch in the same range (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclosearch) or same geographic area, then it's suspicious. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The proliferation of IPs and their respective traceroutes makes me think you were right about this one, though :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is an independent, reliable source to confirm that there are 80,000 active members in the organization. The membership number is an impressive claim to notability, which would nullify a speedy deletion. However, the article still needs a source to confirm that the number is accurate and not puffery on the part of the organization.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to make a comment as a passer-by. This IVAO is as well known in the flight simulation community as the other network called VATSIM; I think deleting an article just because that in the article there's not yet a verifiable source saying that it is notable is ridiculous and is going too far. (How about the fact that one of the two dominant flight simulation web sites, flightsim.com, found it necessary to put it in their official announcement when IVAO just published a magazine? But wait, the Flightsim.com article got deleted too for the same reason, so I guess not.) If so, why don't we for example delete most articles on the world's places such as this and this and this, seeing that most of them are unheard of outside their local areas? I'm ready to bet that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles should be deleted by this standard. As someone who would rather see that IVAO actually be "not notable" and its article removed, what irritates me is not that someone is trying to delete this particular article, but that this is the sort of reason Wikipedia officially uses to delete articles. (And oh, my IP doesn't seem to have any prior editing history either, so you can all just disregard my comment.) -- 119.11.7.91 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)— 119.11.7.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Yes? So then how this is confirmed?: (VATSIM) "As of January 2008, the network has over 150,000 registered members." I don't see any verifiable source to confirm that. If you want to delete IVAO, delete also VATSIM for the same reason! This really gets me angry, when IVAO article is again nominated for deletion, while VATSIM is ok. Either remove both or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.111.200 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) — 132.229.111.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, the VATSIM article is very poorly sourced... but it does have some reliable sources, whereas the IVAO has none. In any case this AfD is for the IVAO, not VATSIM. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources mentioning VASTIM also mention IVAO. The article needs to be improved, but improvement is not impossible. some translation needed, maybe, A discussion of the changes in pilot training including IVAO, covered VERY briefly, Coverage in a flight sim website, although that one may not be fully independent, Google news coverage, making sure to select "archive" instead of "last month"--remember, MORE than half of these are false positives, but that does not make the other half not exist, and so on. Notable. Verifiable. Article needs work. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (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.