Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Games


 * 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 redirect to Gamesys. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Virgin Games

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable by its own. Merge to Virgin Group. Mambo Rumbo (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It doesn't belong in Virgin Group. The article clearly states that the company was sold. As of August 6, 2022, FT.com says Virgin Games is owned by Bally's. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Part of a rapid-fire mass nomination of gambling companies with zero WP:BEFORE diligence. Toohool (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gamesys, which acquired Virgin Games in 2013, and is now part of Bally's Corporation. Initial search in Wikipedia Library yields 2,015 results, but the first dozen or so are brief mentions in articles that are actually about Gamesys, or articles based on old press releases issued by Virgin Games before it was bought. The article as it stands now has little in the way of meaningful, reliable information that needs to be merged into Gamesys. (I've now updated the Virgin Group template to make it clear that Virgin Games falls in the "Former" asset category.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect. Cielquiparle makes a very good argument, and the fact that the original nominator was a sockpuppet doesn't really enter in to if the article meets standards or not. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:22, 1 November 2022 (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.