Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlightMemory

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. Website is featured in the press, has some reputable sources.PeaceNT (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FlightMemory

FlightMemory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A website for people to log their air miles. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete... No, no it's not notable. If there's some independent coverage of the site, even if in specialty publications such as those for aviators, then perhaps there may be some measure of notability. However, my search doesn't come up with any such coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- narrowly meets the notability criteria for web content with mentions in reliable secondary sources including USAToday & Times Online (bnoth footnoted in the article), as well as here. Each article is fairly short but more than a routine listing of the web address or content description. On balance this looks like enough to meet the notability guide. Euryalus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- creator here. While it may be more notable in my eyes because I follow some forums where it's discussed, it's also been covered in mainstram press as Euryalus indicates above. I *believe* I've seen more specialised discussion/coverage (non forum) but I need to do some link digging because it's not on this laptop and may not be easily findable in Google. As I said to RHaworth, I have no problem with whatever the consensus is, I challenged the original ProD because it was my opinion that the reason for nomination wasn't clear. I standby that this isn't spam and no COI since I'm only a user of the site, same as other sites on the web -- no vested interest in it being here other than a desire to contribute to Wikipedia and an opionion that it was notable. Travellingcari (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It does meet the nobility guidelines, and it doesn't sound like CoI at all. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as the sources cited in FlightMemory#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this website per the general notability guideline. John254 02:01, 9 January 2008 (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.