- 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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Onverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another virtual world with questionable sources consisting entirely of the product website and forum posts. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve instead of delete. I'm not sure why you're being so quick to nominate virtual world articles for deletion instead of opting to improve them. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've already noticed six of the twelve sources to be from locations other than the product website and forum. Your argument has collapsed on itself. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no in-depth independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth secondary sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources in the article are mostly directly primary (including press release). [1] (uses their engine, so hardly independent) and [2] are also both interviews (primary). Neither is a WP:VG/RS. [3] comes closest to actual third-party coverage and is probably a decent source (even though the reporter is basically quoting and paraphrasing the CEO). I can't any more sources in news, books or vg sources. There aren't enough references or reviews available to reliably source and thus actually improve the content with real world significance or reception (WP:WAF). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:50, 28 June 2013 (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.