Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniconomy


 * 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. Since the nomination and the one delete comment were predicated on the lack of sources, now that multiple sources have been provided I have given greater weight to the keep views. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Miniconomy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No references (WP:V), does not pass notability guidelines (WP:N (Google shows lots of directory entries; can't see any reliable coverage.) Largely game-guide material (WP:NOT) without any out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Basically no improvement from the previous two deletions (one expired prod, one speedy). Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - From personal experience I can tell you all this game has received a lot of academic coverage in the Netherlands as an educational tool. Let me see if I can find anything on the web, but you'll have to take my word for it for now.  Otherwise I'll have to go to the educational research faculty of my uni and see if they have anything. User:Krator (t c) 11:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's a lot.
 * Inholland centre for E-learning report has a chapter on it. In Holland is the Netherlands' largest provider of education at Hogeschool level.
 * A wiki entry on an educational wiki. Though an open wiki, it is run by Kennisnet, which among other things hosts Wikipedia servers in the Netherlands.
 * The game won a webaward in 2004.
 * another report
 * Basically most of this establishes its notability in this context. The search term is Dutch for 'education'.


 * Further add on and then there's two sources on the article itself, and, both of which are reliable, nontrivial and third-party. User:Krator (t c) 12:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote the above, the article's creator added more sources, all of which are reliable, and the first and third are nontrivial: . The third source is from the NRC Handelsblad, the Dutch "Wall Street Journal" to use an analogy. Marasmusine, withdrawal? User:Krator (t c) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Krator, I'll trust you on the reliablilty of those sources. My judgement is a bit off at the moment (having been awake for 30 hours plus now, don't ask) but if the next person along is happy with those links too then that's fine by me. Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 17 May 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.