Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Possible IRL

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. Only citations are from blogs and other user-generated content. Also has COI issues and appears to veer dangerously close to advertising. Black Kite 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Possible IRL

Almost added a speedy tag for non-notable web, but couldn't quite be sure. All google hits seem to be blogs. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Advertising, and per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep well known in second life, obviously less cited on the web, but with several secondary sources cited including scholarly journals, this art group page meets notability. it could be expanded, and I'm sure it will be expanded over time as more is published. the afd, it seems to me, is a bit of a 'oh something newish, can't be notable' job, which usually is true, alas here, it is not. here we have people doing real work that is being recognized. --Buridan (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The journal sources do discuss art in Second Life, but neither contain the term "NPIRL" or the words "not possible" or the name of the creator listed here, Bettina Tizzy (who is also the author of the article). Perhaps this should be moved to "Art in Second Life," but right now I can't seem to find any citing of this group outside of blogs. I guess "I didn't speedy it" may not sound like I'm giving it the highest consideration, but there is really no claim of notability in this article, and I did look through the sources and try to find others before making the nom. If I'm missing something, please indicate. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still keep I think those citations actually add to this page. I think the improvements mentioned below still sustain notability. I think more verifiable sources have been found. One of the issues we have here is that SL in world activities are ephemeral, so it will take some time to develop more secondary verifiability--Buridan (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and this will turn out to be a good resource about artists working in virtual environments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumnosophistai (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) — Gumnosophistai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've removed the ref that is unrelated to the topic. Other refs are all blogs, which are not reliable. Unless notability can be demonstrated, this should be delete. If "art in virtual environments" is a notable field, then make an article about that (with refs) - it doesn't make this group notable though. -- Mark Chovain 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep (tentatively) -- I did a major revision to the page and removed the blogs that didn't reference the group. I did add references to writers who have referenced the group as a source though. The group is seems to be pretty prolific in getting the word out about fantastical Second Life builds, but I can't find alot of mainstream reference to them, or many interviews with it's creator. I think this could be an interesting article about the group with some work, but I don't know if the CfD is going to allow that much time.BcRIPster (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

still keep - I have just been pointed to a citation from HBO documentaries that mentions the group and I have added that to the article. I have been doing some digging and it appears there may be more of this type of citation forthcoming over the next couple of weeks. Is it possible to have a stay on this AfD for 30days, or is the 5-day rule set in stone?BcRIPster (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has changed a lot (for the better) in the past day, so some of the first few comments may no longer be applicable. The journal articles are all gone, for example. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to challenge verifiability policy/reliable sources in the context of the subject matter. The majority of journalists who report on Second Life and other virtual world related news, publish exclusively via the WWW and frequently via a blog format. Take for instance James Au Wagner who is a former writer for Wired and has written for other mainstream news outlets. He current runs a regular feature about Second Life related news, but it is only available from a blog he publishes like a newsletter. His publication is strongly considered to be a reliable source in the virtual worlds community.BcRIPster (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the notable exception of Reuters, "virtual world journalists" = bloggers. WillOakland (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment disagree, bloggers are bloggers and journalists are journalists. The two overlap when a professional journalist has a blog, that is journalism so long as the author maintains the professional standing on that blog. now you are welcome to your opinion, of course, but perhaps reading some of the research of Axel Bruns and others would change your opinion.--Buridan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd also like to challenge that vote based on the poster being uninformed with their statement. There are literally dozens of publications within Second Life that replicate their content externally via blogs, that have editorial processes and content controls for their writers, and this isn't just English based. Some are Japanese, Russian, and German that I know of, and I'm sure there are more, and only a few of them republish externally via PDF, etc... many use blogs.BcRIPster (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to convincingly establish notability. Biruitorul (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken this issue of "bloggers vs reporters" up on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources discussion page.BcRIPster (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this group is somewhat notable on Flickr, it is not well known by almost the entire community of Second Life, and therefore does not have any sources to cite and use. (On Flickr it is notable because it is a Flickr Group.) -Smiley Barry ^{[USER] [TALK] [SL]} 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've misjudged the community, and i'm deeply sorry about my overstatement. I am a teen grid Second Life resident, so I don't know ALL aspects of Second Life. After reviewing the web for sources and knowledge of it, I have decided to change my vote to keep. Deeply sorry again. -Smiley Barry ^{[USER] [TALK] [SL]} 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Not Possible in Real Life group is absolutely essential for the world to know about. Bettina has carefully assembled this group out of some of the most creative artists in the world of Second Life. The best news about second life comes from groups and people inside Second Life. People who live in the world are best able to present information and news and this takes a blog format in 98% of cases in order to be shared with the 2D side of the internet. If anything, this page simply needs some love and more information to properly frame the importance of this group to the future of virtual world technology and Art.Earth Primbee (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) — Primbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Not notable, only group of users of virtual world. --Jklamo (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2008 (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.