Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy in Secondlife

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 of the debate was delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for deletion because much of it is background information that, with some editing, would probably be more at home in the main Second Life article, and the part that isn't (from the discussion of the Fetid/Feted Inner Core on) is likely to be meaningless or of little interest to those not steeped in the culture or society of Second Life. zztzed 23:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - Much of the article is useful information, but has nothing at all to do with controversy in Second Life. The parts that do discuss controversy (as described by Zztzed above) are a possible candidate for NPOV dispute. Though they generally adhere to language that is almost neutral (witness the use of "alleged" and a fair amount of passive voice), they are biased against both "successful" content creators in Second Life and against Linden Lab itself.

In addition, there are some factual errors:

• Preen, though located centrally in Midnight City, was not the target of one of the beginning player links. Midnight City in its entirety was the target.
• Abbotts Aerodrome contains a number of vehicle stores, but it encompasses a wide variety of other activities and services surounding aviation, including but not limited to skydiving, automated aerial tours of Second Life, and various vehicle building classes. Abbotts Aerodrome is by no means "a vehicle store."

Chandra Page 00:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The original article was included in the Second Life page, and was split from it by another author. Originally it was intended to meet NPOV as without it the Second Life page reflected only a positive point of view about Second Life.
• Delete, although I'd almost say "Merge with Second Life per the nominator." This isn't speedy cleanup or forced merge so this discussion really should never have started. Next time just be bold: Cook this down to the two paragraphs it should be and make the redirect yourself. But since we are here and this would not make a meaningful re-direct, deletion is a good option. Any useful material will have to be re-sourced and cited by whomever does the not-quite-a-merge-so-we-don't-violate-GFDL. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.