Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtonomics (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 delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Virtonomics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and fails WP:N. Soetermans. T / C 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - while the concept of business-based games are way cool in my book, this company just doesn't have enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet notability threshold. Best found is stuff like these:  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * note - do note that Articles for deletion/Virtonomics back in 2010 was a keep, and some discussion of russian-language sources.  I'd probably change my mind if someone else reviewed the russian sources and found them reliable.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Most of the Russian sources mentioned above (and in the previous AfD) were in the article, but I removed them as unreliable, mostly press releases, that didn't even support the claims made. The sites haven't been vetted by WPVG–which isn't unusual, especially for non-English sources–but if they were brought to WP:VG/RS I can guarantee that they would be judged as unreliable. We're talking blogs without mastheads or any indication of editorial control, most without even author by-lines, but prominent "advertise here" links. I couldn't say that the articles were advertisements, of course, but they're just like what we see on advert-ridden pay-to-review browser game sites. There is zero indication that this game has been featured or reviewed by any sort of legitimate gaming press. Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2015 (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.