The result was delete. – Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish a claim of notability, and also to verify this through reliable independent sources. The limited references provided include a press release, and other non-independent sources. The article is also incoherent, and I do not see this as a natural grouping for a subject. Of much more applicability would be an article on military PC-based Desk Top Trainers not just specifying one aircraft type. There is no rational as to why F-16 PC Based desk top trainers are more relevant compared to, say, an F/A-18 PC Desk top trainer. The article cannot be salvaged in such a way that it makes sense, as well as satisfying notability. Icemotoboy ( talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Your nom confused me a bit, but now I've read the article I get it; this is simply just a list of flight simulator games that feature F-16s. Ryan4314 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Happy Holidays 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails to establish a claim of notability, and also to verify this through reliable independent sources. The limited references provided include a press release, and other non-independent sources. The article is also incoherent, and I do not see this as a natural grouping for a subject. Of much more applicability would be an article on military PC-based Desk Top Trainers not just specifying one aircraft type. There is no rational as to why F-16 PC Based desk top trainers are more relevant compared to, say, an F/A-18 PC Desk top trainer. The article cannot be salvaged in such a way that it makes sense, as well as satisfying notability. Icemotoboy ( talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Your nom confused me a bit, but now I've read the article I get it; this is simply just a list of flight simulator games that feature F-16s. Ryan4314 ( talk) 09:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply