Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS2


 * 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. I don't see how you an merge a TNT but as the sources are here they can be used to recreate something useful. Otherwise clear consensus TNT applies Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

VBS2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable piece of software, with the article written under obvious COI. Fails WP:GNG and is mostly unsourced, aside from the ad-ridden customers list (which also mostly relies on primary sources). Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Most current sourcing is primary, with a lot of deadlinks mixed in, most I've been unable to verify or find a good archive for. A lot of press releases or news clippings from the companies or militaries directly involved for the most part. BBC is the strongest source here, while others mention it in a broader context of military spending and with little focus on the game itself. I found a single review in what would be considered traditional VG sourcing. For each of the entries, VBS1, VBS2, and VBS3, I have found maybe 1-2 solid source that could be considered indepth. On their own, I cannot find enough independent coverage to say GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge - Software article of clear notability, established by significant coverage in BBC and Wired. Stars and Stripes is also an independent source with coverage - funded by military but editorially independent. A merge of the 3 Virtual Battlespace articles now at afd into a single article would also be a reasonable solution. Possible promotional content and low quality refs should be removed, but that is outside the scope of afd. Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD.  The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be).  A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable.  Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is.  -2pou (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with 2pou's TNT + merge suggestion. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also support merging the 3 VBS game articles into a single series article.Dialectric (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

70.240.207.189 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I agree with the merge proposal to a franchise page. There are a number of very solid articles on both VBS2 and 3 (haven't checked 1 yet), adding them in should add some meat that can hopefully be kept when the poorly sourced and promotional content is sliced out.


 * 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.