Talk:FlightMemory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Why is this spam? I'm happy to work on the article but it's hard to know what someone thinks is wrong with it, with no comment having been left. Removing the template after I find another source but just because it's not the world's most popular website, it doesn't mean it's spam. I have no connection with the website other than being one of its users. There's been no information posted anywhere, including the articles for deletion. ??? I can't even find out who recommended it for deletion. -- Travellingcari (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The comment left was "spam for nn-website". "Spam" means advertising. "nn-" means non-notable. Why did I need to say more? "can't even find out ..." ridiculous - look at the history. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

and I'm saying I don't understand why it's spam -- you didn't clarify why you believe it's spam -- and looking at the history shows nothing other than one change to fix a citation error. I see that notability could be up for debate but calling it spam without saying why is a bit odd. And no, I couldn't find who did it at first because usually there's a comment on talk or something. So my original question stands, why do you perceive it as spam? I'm not going to argue notability since that's subjective and clearly you and I see it differently. Travellingcari (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is this history entry? It was a prod - I don't go into detail because I know that 80% of my prods stick. This one has not stuck - fine - now we discuss. OK, I accept that it is not spam - I looked at the creator's name: Travellingcari and assumed a COI without checking the user's contribution history. But I am very dubious about the notability - I compared Alexa's ranking against my own website and was not impressed. (Actually it is a cheat - the myby traffic graph is for all myby - only 11% of that is my website.) So let's have an AfD discussion. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you, that's what I consider as an explanation. I'm happy with the AfD discussion and would understand if it's decided to delete it -- I'm just for discussion rather than "X is spam" with no explanation of why it's spam. Headed to the AfD discussion so we don't have this in 5 places, I'm just glad to have more information on your POV. Whatever happens, happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)