Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightView (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) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FlightView

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

The article is completely unsourced, since 5 years ago. It therefore fails WP:V, and doesn't seem to be notable at all. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one app seems notable enought to be included in a list somewhere. The independent information I found would only produce a stub. Not notable. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The company does seem Not notable. Jab843 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 16 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.