Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XPLANE (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 keep. W.marsh 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned that deletion in light of new sources, for which, see the DRV. (The summary provided by Uncle G is particularly helpful reading.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:CORP as there are several references and reviews of the company in non-trivial publications such as CNN Money. Jayden54 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a slight hint of a weblog related to this company as the 2nd hit, and this immediately raises red-spam flags for me. --timecop 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to XPLANE (company). Cited sources now show this meets WP:CORP. I'd suggest a dab page for the company, the flight simulator and the aircraft. --Pak21 16:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and create dab page per Pak21. The first version was clearly delete material, but the rewrite just as clearly meets WP:CORP by citing independent references. It is unfortunate that it took a nasty slog through deletion review to get here, but that just illustrates the hazards of ignoring Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I would strongly advise the original author to adopt a hands-off approach to this article in the future and let other editors maintain it; this will eliminate any future COI concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why should Microsoft be treated differently then X-Plane? Naem 213.42.21.78 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Microsoft software is on over 80% of desktop PCs world wide? *shrug* Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two claims to fame (which may not meet formal WP:CORP criteria). --Phil Wolff 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First, xplane-the-company is a thought leader in data visualization, illustration. Their work keeps raising the bar in how communication problems are approached, how clients are involved in the process, and tools for being effective much faster than before. So they've demonstrated leadership in a craft, nearly redefining an industry.
- Second, their Business 2.0 look is becoming one of the hallmark aesthetics of the dot com era, the way Art Deco was for the 1920s. I don't know if they see themselves this way, but I think they carved a chunk of art history for themselves. --Phil Wolff 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  User has 30 edits. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have read Business 2.0, which is an informed publication. That they use XPLANE is a good level of independent support. Stephen B Streater 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has few recent contributions outside the area. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That probably depends on what you mean by recent. I have been keeping in touch and am on the WikiEN mailing list. I also have over 4,000 edits to my name - more than the above poster. One shouldn't let paranoia colour ones judgement too much. Stephen B Streater 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice stub for a company that clearly meets WP:CORP. Can an admin invoke WP:SNOW at this point? B.Wind 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot, as there is no unanimous decision. Proto::type 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to XPLANE (company) and create disambig page for 3 different Xplane articles. The article is stubby, and in need of expansion, but it is substantially improved over the previous article. It is well referenced to multiple, third-party sources now. --Jayron 32 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two sources is hardly "multiple". When the "references" and "see alsos" are bigger than the article itself, something is wrong. Doesn't look like this stub can get any further than it has on referenced material alone. As for a WP:SNOW keep closure, we can't have that, because a number of the "keep" comments bear no relevance. I mean, comparing this company to Microsoft? Still worried that not only is the second result on Google a blog, but that most of the rest aren't even referring to this company. Chris cheese whine 13:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is no longer spam and information is reliably sourced through more than one source, establishing notability and verifiability. (Disclosure: I was one who helped the author revise the article after it was initially deleted to meet guidelines and policies.) Seraphimblade 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies the regular WP:CORP guideline. --Oakshade 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CORP, but will need an eye keeping on it, as many of the article contributors work for the company. Proto::type 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per numerous comments on conflict of interest, I don't plan to make any more edits to the XPLANE article (I am the founder and CEO of the company). To my knowledge, none of the text in the current article was written by me or anyone else who works for (or has any affiliation with) XPLANE. If I have anything to offer I will put in on the XPLANE talk page for others to consider.--Dgray xplane 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the wisest policy. I didn't put an article up about me or my company in the end. People can always come to my company website for the official view. Wikipedia is more about what other people think. [Edit] This wasn't obvious from the anyone can edit claim, but it becomes evident pretty quickly if you try it out. Other sites, such as Wikinfo, are more relaxed, but have correspondingly fewer readers. Stephen B Streater 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't impressed with the previous version of the article but I think this version is a good start and should be kept. --Charlesknight 20:45, 3 December 2006 (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.