Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtualology


 * 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Virtualology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not sure of the notability of this. Relatively low # of Google hits, and created by a likely COI conflict  Pur ple  back pack 89    16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. Most of the references in the article aren't about the subject at all.  Needs to show more independent coverage, but looks like a promising site; hopefully we'll see it in the future. Shell   babelfish 19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Agree with rationale as provided above by . Fails WP:NOTE, lack of multiple significant independent and reliable secondary sources giving depth of discussion to this particular subject. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article does provide reliable sources about the subject and meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is admittedly a borderline case. A couple more references like Pittsburgh Post Gazette's "Upper St. Clair archivist lends documents of Founding Fathers to library" and the article would meet the notability guideline. However, that's the only one I could find, and it needs multiple such sources. Melchoir (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Melchoir's assessment, i.e. no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree with Shell and Melchior regarding substantial coverage in reliable sources. Reyk  YO!  12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong merge so Stan Klos. Can't see why deletion would be prefereable to integrating the content into the existing article on the parent subject about the site's creator. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like another editor took the initiative and boldly merged in the relevant sourced bits about this subject into the article about the site's founder. I suggest this title can be left as a redirect (protected if necessary). No need to lose the history and such. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:26, 28 July 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.