Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightdiary

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flightdiary[edit]

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

Searching for sources results only in forum posts or brief mentions. No significant coverage in reliable sources. A7 was declined by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was created by a new editor early today. Less than one minute after that editor made their second edit to the article, Narutolovehinata5 placed a speedy deletion tag on it, even though it was evident that the article creator hadn't finished work. That behaviour was abusive, and violated WP:BITE. Such actions are incompatible with our commitment to "treat newcomers with kindness and patience". Every editor should be afforded a decent opportunity to write their first article, a point that ought to go without saying. Doubling down on such misbehaviour is substantively uncivil and merits summary rejection by the community. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Can only find brief mentions, mostly in blogs. No coverage to establish notability. This "article" is only two sentences and lacks acceptable sources and there aren't sources to be able to improve it. MB (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nominator. This clearly met the G11 and G12 criteria of a speedy delete as it's just a copy and paste of the about us on the website, and even then the article is just a couple of sentences. Their Facebook was last updated on May 2012 and their last tweet was Nov 2015, so it would seem that they are hardly notable. Also the rationale for keeping the article is that the competition has an article, which btw, is also being considered for deletion. David.moreno72 (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for G12. Blatant copy and paste of the company's only "reference", the two-sentence About Us page of this website. No other references would have been found to add as nothing is published. The new editor should build their next article in their sandbox then, release it when complete. Their defender may want to pick their battles: Defense of other articles is appreciated, but not this clear copyright violation with no references. —Prhart com♥ 05:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is unfortunate that it's a new editor, the subject still does not have GNG notabilty. AadaamS (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing including for basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 22 May 2016 (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.