Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightView

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FlightView

Advertisement, fails WP:CORP, non-NPOV. Prod deleted by original author. Author appears to be from the company itself and using this article as an advertisement (also has warning on user page). Orphaned. Edits by user appear to be malicious, as well. --JStalk 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To clear up confusion -- FlightView is not a company, it is a product. The WP:CORP failure I mention is therefore on grounds of product notability (subject of multiple reference works outside of the company, genericization), not company notability.

• Weak Keep I found an article on PCMag. Could be an interesting article if rewritten. WP 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dbchip 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep "FlightView" has 128000 results in google, and the company has been around a long time. mathewguiver 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FlightView is not a company. It is a suite of products from RLM Software (which does not have an article).

Therefore, I feel that it fails WP:CORP -- the only evidence against that has been presented by WP above (as one element toward WP:CORP 2.1). The fact that it has a number of results in Google and that its maker has been around a long time is not grounds for inclusion of this product (the company perhaps).

"HempWorld" has 12,000+ hits in Google, has been around a long time [1], but I doubt one of their products (i.e., "Hemp Suckers") would pass an AfD. Same base reasoning here (and no, it's not because they're hemp popsicles). RLM's been around a while, great, write an article on them, FlightView as a product isn't notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia due to WP:CORP. --JStalk 19:23, 29 August 2006 (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.