Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Businesses and organizations in Second Life (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The result was   Withdrawn Yeah, whatever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Businesses and organizations in Second Life
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No real notability, indiscriminate list. Uncategorized to boot. Kept in March with promises to trim and source. Sourced, maybe, trimmed, no. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- I see no problems with the list that can't be solved through editing/cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why is nobody tending to it? :-P Seriously, it seems like an unmaintainable list to me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your second point- I'm not seeing how its unmaintainable. It seems like as long as the stuff in there is sourced correctly (and the first part of the article is re-written, holy cow is that badly done), it seems to me at least, that it can be done. As for your first question... probably because everybody who would want to do it is too busy living their second lives to be worried about first life things like wikipedia ;). As a serious response, all i can really say is just because it *hasn't* been done, doesn't mean it *can't* be done.Umbralcorax (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The basis is valid and I can't see problems with the implementation that would defeat the article's point. Much has been written about business in Second Life: we definitely need to cover corporate presence. The list has very clear criteria. If entries need to be limited further, which I don't think they do, we should at the least look at the way the matter has been handled in other business or organization lists. --Kiz o r  18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep really major internet phenomenon., I'm not sure where it would shade over into directory, but the presenrt article is still ok and the criteria satisfactory. DGG (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean-up: There are reliable third-party sources on many of these businesses and organizations in Second Life because it's a pretty monumental phenomenon. Also, I don't think anything has really changed (on Wikipedia, or in the game industry) that would justify a change in consensus from the previous AFD, which was to keep. However, there was also a consensus that a lot of the in-game-only organizations were inappropriate and verging on WP:SPAM. There appears to be a consensus to clean this list up so that it isn't an indiscriminate list of every "player" to make an organization in the "game", but a list of truly notable organizations. A lot of this article violates WP:SPAM and WP:MADEUP. Randomran (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but definite need for clean-up This is certainly notable -- I remember hearing on NPR when Wells Fargo decided to open up in the game. But it needs lots of cleanup, perhaps a total makeover. [ Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do? ] 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I went ahead and cleaned this up. You can compare the version that was originally nominated for deletion here, with the new version here. Everything I removed was either unreferenced, or referenced to sources that would fail WP:V (and for information that would fail WP:NOT). Randomran (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (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.