Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtualmalaysia


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtualmalaysia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, self-promotional UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Malaysian Ministry of Tourism if that page or an analog thereof exists. Otherwise delete as non-notable under WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails notability guidelines; I cannot find any appropriate reliable sources with significant coverage about this website  Chzz  ►  08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * DeleteThe site linked fails to work from this New Jersey based computer, and as Chazz said it isn't reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per, , , etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would change my vote to keep if the article is updated to incorporate the material from these references you have identified and the citations are updated. The article's current contents are greatly lacking and it acts as a magnet for new articles by non-notable companies. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete not notable Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Plenty of hits in reliable sources on gNews. Not sure why you guys don't think it's notable. The reliability of the site in question is irrelevant, only whether the site has been covered by secondary reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but the article contains no such references. UncleDouggie (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should tag it as such. Just because the article is not FA doesn't mean we should delete it until it becomes FA. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (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.