Talk:Precision Manuals Development Group
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Please add that they have revamped their strategy, and are now also developing the MD-11 for FS2004.
69.250.70.234 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Frank Grivel
Notability and References
I would normally have Proposed Deletion of this article, as its has no primary references to indicate notability for inclusion of wikipedia, beyond simply just existing and having products. Does anyone have any references available to establish notability and verify the information in this article? If I cannot find any over the next few weeks I will proposing deletion. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've now spent the better part of a year trying to improve this article but have failed to find any references. Over this time, the article become one big advert. I requested speedy deletion but this failed, so I have now pruned again the weasel wording and spam.Icemotoboy (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate information
The criticism over the 400X release was not "widespread", it was a small vocal minority on our forum - every FS9 747-400 customer was emailed an offer to purchase the discounted version before the price went back up. The "few new features" criticism is also inaccurate, the 400X features entirely new visual models (still among the only fully FSX compliant in the addon industry) and the gauge framework was entirely rewritten to use SimConnect instead of the older FSUIPC interface. The fact that these are "under the hood" changes led a small number of people to believe that we simply "ported" the 400 to FSX - this is not true, it took 18 months of work in close collaboration with ACES to do it.
- Ryan Maziarz, PMDG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.193.83 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the material back to a stub. I'll be searching for referenced material to make this into a good quality article. If you know of any sources discussing the PMDG (not the products ideally, rather the company), please post them below so I can use them to grow the article.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just added a couple of the products the company has produced as they are essential to the entry. I agree this article should have facts not opinions - cheers Bogsludger (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I fully support the fleshing out of the article down to a stub. The article should only be expanded based on significant third-party coverage, positive or negative (though negative should be treated with more care). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, I think a good stub would be a good place to start. I did find one reference in the last AfD, ill track it down.Icemotoboy (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I fully support the fleshing out of the article down to a stub. The article should only be expanded based on significant third-party coverage, positive or negative (though negative should be treated with more care). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)