Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeoFS
- 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. ✗plicit 10:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
GeoFS
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- GeoFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sourcing is mixed at best. I don't think this would've made it through AfC. Even with a major cleanup and links to secondary sources, GeoFS is only really ever included in "top x flight simulator games" pieces, and even then with very varying levels of depth and reputable coverage. guninvalid (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings: @Aviationwikiflight @Mybirthday647 @Xavier Tassin guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- User "Xavier Tassin", pinged here, is an homonym (likely an impostor as their edits show only some form of vandalism). It would have been interesting to ping more active and/or historical editors in order to broaden the views on this AfD. xtassin (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- As the creator of GeoFS I can only admit the lack of sources and references but would be very sad to see GeoFS removed from Wikipedia: this article has been around since April 2013 and constantly updated, with various levels of maturity, accuracy and academism, but with regularity and goodwill. I believe that, with some work and research from a seasoned editor, the article could be made clean, informative and help GeoFS users and the more general flight simulation community (where GeoFS has made a small, quiet but definitive place) by providing some history, context and information about the software. GeoFS community is made of mostly young users, gathered around social networks which may explain the enthusiastic but variable editorial quality and perhaps lack of traditional sources. I will just provide here a few more "serious" and secondary sources if that may be of any help.
- https://cesium.com/blog/2021/12/06/geofs-is-a-flight-simulator-that-showcases-global-satellite/
- http://navigraph.com/blog/geofs-simbrief
- https://www.aerobility.com/virtual-aviation-experience
- https://www.helisimmer.com/articles/simming-browser-geo-fs
- https://flightsimweekend.com/exhibitors/
- https://www.flightsimshow.com/
- https://www.aero-news.net/FullsizeImage.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=4428FF8F-7F87-43B2-AA7F-4D41D54C0696
- Some older sources which were once used in this article:
- https://www.cesium.com/blog/2017/11/16/gefs/
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016c19g (only accessible in the UK I believe - this is quite old now)
- https://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2012/04/the_unofficial_google_earth_flight.html
- Video reviews if that can ever be considered a reference:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0XzMTj1RM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQT3F5XSYY Candide (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Every single one of these sources is borderline in some way. Every source listed is either a WP:BLOG entry or WP:SELFPUB or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. I would also hate to see this article be deleted, but in its current form it just isn't Wikipedia-worthy.guninvalid (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Wikipedia lingo and processes but as far as my understanding goes, I can admit WP:BLOG or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE but would refute any of the abovementioned sources to be WP:SELFPUB. My feeling so far is that you (too) quickly made up your mind on the matter after making some rapid, successive edits, some of them not showing a full understanding of the subject (GeoFS has not been running on Google Earth for about 10 years now) which undermined the essence of the subject: an accessible alternative to major flight simulation software as a rare occurrence of a web based application. I understand that your focus is now on the lack of sources, which I acknowledged. But I, as a naïve Wikipedia user, and just within the near flight simulation category, can point to several other articles with about the same level of source quality, none of them being challenged for that. I hope you understand, then, why I question this deletion. I still believe this article can bring value to Wikipedia and to the community as a whole if properly edited and can only regret that no other, more informed, experienced or just alternative opinion can be cast on this issue. Yet again, my knowledge of Wikipedia is too limited to bring the defense of this article further so from this point, I will simply rely on the way it works and has ever been working. Do as you must. xtassin (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with you that I would hate to see this article deleted. But information on Wikipedia needs to be WP: VERIFIABLE, and it can't be verifiable without proper sourcing. I'm not able to find anything usable. Hopefully someone with more experience can try their hand at it. As for my edits, I deleted most of the information because almost none of it is verifiable from sourcing. The development section in particular was based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, i.e. the GeoFS blog and Tassin yourself. guninvalid (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sources about GeoFS appeared to be OK for the creation of the article and 12 years of presence on Wikipedia. Please, next time and just before you elect for deletion an article you would hate to see deleted, especially when it is about a 15 years old, single maintainer project, carefully weigh in all the consequences this may have. As an editor, you do and must have a moral responsibility when taking such a quick and radical decision especially when "being borderline" is involved and other warnings, propositions for help or any other route could have been taken. xtassin (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Tassin, I understand that you want to keep your project on Wikipedia. I do too. But again, none of this matters if none of the sources are reliable. I would be happy to look at more sources, but please review wikipedia's policies on what makes sources reliable. I am genuinely happy your project exists and I do want to play it sometime, but that doesn't make it notable or verifiable. guninvalid (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Sources about GeoFS appeared to be OK for the creation of the article and 12 years of presence on Wikipedia. Please, next time and just before you elect for deletion an article you would hate to see deleted, especially when it is about a 15 years old, single maintainer project, carefully weigh in all the consequences this may have. As an editor, you do and must have a moral responsibility when taking such a quick and radical decision especially when "being borderline" is involved and other warnings, propositions for help or any other route could have been taken. xtassin (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Again, I agree with you that I would hate to see this article deleted. But information on Wikipedia needs to be WP: VERIFIABLE, and it can't be verifiable without proper sourcing. I'm not able to find anything usable. Hopefully someone with more experience can try their hand at it. As for my edits, I deleted most of the information because almost none of it is verifiable from sourcing. The development section in particular was based entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, i.e. the GeoFS blog and Tassin yourself. guninvalid (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with Wikipedia lingo and processes but as far as my understanding goes, I can admit WP:BLOG or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE but would refute any of the abovementioned sources to be WP:SELFPUB. My feeling so far is that you (too) quickly made up your mind on the matter after making some rapid, successive edits, some of them not showing a full understanding of the subject (GeoFS has not been running on Google Earth for about 10 years now) which undermined the essence of the subject: an accessible alternative to major flight simulation software as a rare occurrence of a web based application. I understand that your focus is now on the lack of sources, which I acknowledged. But I, as a naïve Wikipedia user, and just within the near flight simulation category, can point to several other articles with about the same level of source quality, none of them being challenged for that. I hope you understand, then, why I question this deletion. I still believe this article can bring value to Wikipedia and to the community as a whole if properly edited and can only regret that no other, more informed, experienced or just alternative opinion can be cast on this issue. Yet again, my knowledge of Wikipedia is too limited to bring the defense of this article further so from this point, I will simply rely on the way it works and has ever been working. Do as you must. xtassin (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Every single one of these sources is borderline in some way. Every source listed is either a WP:BLOG entry or WP:SELFPUB or WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. I would also hate to see this article be deleted, but in its current form it just isn't Wikipedia-worthy.guninvalid (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Most of the sources are lists of flight simulators, most being about the best or "must-try" ones, while one is about 8 games similar to...Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024? Either work together and find better sources about the game, or delete the article. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 23:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- Have you just had a look at the list of extra sources I provided? xtassin (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, I used the xfdvote tool. Sorry. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 12:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is the feeling I have here: decisions are made based on the state of the article at a moment in time, a snapshot on a long timeline (seriously dented by the last modifications from the editor at the origin of the AfD) without even taking into account subject matter, context, history and perhaps considering that the "bad" state of the article can be transitory. Harsh. Unfair. Uninformed. xtassin (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, I used the xfdvote tool. Sorry. The Master of Hedgehogs (talk) (contributions) (Sign my guestbook!) 12:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Have you just had a look at the list of extra sources I provided? xtassin (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to List of flight simulator video games as an alternative to deletion – Starting off with something unrelated to the discussion but @Xtassin, if you are indeed the real creator of GeoFs, you are required to declare a conflict of interest. – Now back to the main topic, per WP:GNG – Source analysis of the cited sources in the article and the sources presented in this discussion:
- Per the source analysis, there clearly is no significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Most of the sources are either (non-independent) blogs or a list of "Best flight simulators" that just don't provide significant coverage of the game itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- soft Delete Seems interesting and based on what little is written should be easy to find more if its been kept up. But based on what has been posted so far just does not stand out enough for its own page right now. Maybe merge to a flight sim/game page if its not there already. ContentEditman (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2025 (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.