Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirtuaGirl


 * 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. long running consensus is that the register is not a RS so the argument that this fails to pass GNG appears well founded Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

VirtuaGirl

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable. Many, many similar adult software programs in the years prior to and after the release of this one. Article reads like an advertisement. One article used as a "reference" is a one word mention. I'm taking it on good faith that the author's intent was not spam/advertisement but it unintentionally borders on it. Original article's author/creator immediately removed tag for discussion of deletion so I've moved it here. Qfonchey (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: First of all, this article is only 3 days old (at the time of the AfD nomination), has 2 reliable sources, and is still a stub. Second, VirtuaGirl is notable in being one of the first adult screensavers. Which "adult software programs" do what VirtuaGirl does that came out before 1998? I can think of one other that came out around the same time, Oska Software's Tahni DeskMate (though Oska the koala bear was first in August 1998, but he's not adult-oriented). VirtuaGirl is more explicit. Curious that you made a Wikipedia account just to nominate this article for deletion... &mdash;Eekerz (t) 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For those just joining this discussion, let me point out that Eekerz is the creator of the article nominated for deletion. Many virtually identical sex software programs have been speedily deleted from Wikipedia over the years. As I mentioned before, one of the references you cite basically just lists the title of the game in the article. The other is almost a decade old from a technology site that is well known for their use of sarcasm in articles. The first article you cite even points out that there are literally "reams" of programs like this one and points you to a web site that lists even more. Its actually a source citing how ubiquitous the program was and is. Also, even though you've listed it as freeware, its actually switch and bait: you have to pay to "upgrade" it. Most legitimate freeware sites don't accept this definition of freeware. To quote VirtuaGirl's own site: "The...software allows VirtuaGirl to convert a much higher percentage of affiliate traffic and the combination of a monthly service or ticket-based business model promotes repeat purchases at a variety of price points to maximize the total revenue potential of each referred client." ...hardly free, more of a marketing scam, and not a program Wikipedia should be drawn into promoting or legitimizing. As for your comment "you made a Wikipedia account just to nominate this article for deletion", I've been making contributions to Wikipedia for some time, this was the first time that I needed an account name to complete a submission. One of the reasons I avoided getting an account name was just to avoid that kind of personal attack. My disagreement with your articles worthiness has nothing to do with you...I have no idea who you are or want to know. Please don't take my nomination as a personal attack and respond again with another personal dig. Qfonchey (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A reliable source (especially from Wired Magazine) that even mentions the program is still legitimate as a way to substantiate the claim of the program's existence, for example. If a program is ubiquitous then that's even more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia to reflect the program's popularity (and not promote it commercially but encylopedically). Freeware does not just refer to completely free software. Also, if you don't have the guts to back your nomnination with a legitimate credible account, it's hard to take you seriously, and it does seem like you're trying to take a shot at my contributions to Wikipedia which I make an effort to reliably source. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 00:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Eekerz says: "you don't have the guts to back your nomnination (sic) with a legitimate credible account, it's hard to take you seriously". From No_personal_attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Qfonchey (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - based on the coverage revealed by Google News. Seems to satisfy general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Advertising for freeware pornographic screensaver. Just because it's free doesn't change the fact that it's advertising... Carrite (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not advertising; it's simply an article about a software application, like the hundreds, if not thousands of other software application articles (and, especially, the hundreds of adult video games)--and any article about any commercial product--on Wikipedia. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment I count five links in the article under "External Links". All of them go to sites that sell VirtuaGirl or a rebranded variation. Three are "official" sites and two are sites that resell VirtuaGirl as an affiliate. That seems like very aggressive advertising to me. Qfonchey (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 of the external links are official websites for each product, common in Wikipedia articles about commercial products. The other 2 links are reviews. Someone else added the Rabbits Reviews site but I added the VirtuaGirlReview site because it reviews the actual models used in VirtuaGirl. Just because these review sites also have links to the product are secondary. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention price or promote purchasing the product in any way. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They may be the greatest sites in the world for all I know, but getting paid to (re)sell and/or review a product you write about by the company whose product you are reviewing is not a standard ethical journalism practice because of the obvious conflict of interest. Qfonchey (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can create an affiliate link--even with a negative review. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete. I changed my vote because aside of The Register, I can not find any relevant GNews hits and also no other coverage in RS. The reference to the Wired Magazine only proves the freeware claim but is limited to a single sentence which adds nothing to the notability: "At Adult Game Reviews, there are reams of freeware games like strip poker, Smutropolis and VirtuaGirl where naked women will pop up on your screen. ". There seem also to be no further mentions of that site there. So only the nearly 10 years old article of The Register remains. I am not a fan of deletion but there seem to be no sources that confirm a particular notability of that software, even if it is somewhat special. I've removed my ealier statement and the related offtopic comments to it. Testales (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The notability is in the fact that there even is a 10-year-old article about this adult-oriented program. What other adult program is still being developed after 10+ years? Quite notable indeed. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the follow up to that article a week later by the same magazine  is an explanation to their readers about how they can delete the spyware that VirtuaGirl installed on their computers. Qfonchey (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Way to take it out of context: "Fortunately, [VirtuaGirl's "spyware" is] not malicious. It simply queries when you last ran VirtuaGirl, where and how you last started it and whether you have registered the software or not. This is standard enough and will not affect you and (hopefully) not cause you to receive emails from dodgy outlets." Do you have a personal vendetta against VirtuaGirl or something, Qfonchey? You sure are working hard to get this article deleted... Why don't you be more constructive and try to find references for the 280,000+ unreferenced articles and leave the articles that actually have references alone? Sheesh... &mdash;Eekerz (t) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, to quote Testales "there seem to be no sources that confirm a particular notability of that software". A link to an article that uses the word VirtuaGirl once, and then only to point out that it is one of many similar adult games, is not a claim to notability. In fact, it is a strong argument for non-notability. To quote What_Wikipedia_is_not: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As for the spyware, let me get this straight. According to VirtuaGirl's web site it's a "free software" program except that it charges you an annual fee to buy it, and it is "spyware free", except that it installs registry edits that track how and when you use the program and reports your user information to a site called "geishalounge.com"? Eekerz says: "Do you have a personal vendetta..." Please, as I've asked you repeatedly before, stop making up motives and attacking me personally. I'd never even heard of you or your program until I stumbled across it on Wikipedia. I don't question your motives for defending your article. Qfonchey (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you personally, Qfonchey; stop assuming I am. I simply question your motives for nominating this article when adequate notability with credible, reliable, 3rd-party references has been provided. You, and others, simply refuse to accept the references that establish notability. Not my problem. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As the article stands, no real indication of notability. If someone adds some proper coverage, I might reconsider. (I'm not planning to take part in the SPA argument - let's keep to the article.) Peridon (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)



Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I like it, but there is no indication of notability. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability has already been established as described above and references used in the article. &mdash;Eekerz (t) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Coverage in Wired and the Register and elsewhere are light-weight, and not enough for WP:N. With current sources, the article doesn't look like growing beyond a stub. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (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.