Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Virtual Realities

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Virtual Realities

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A class at one college. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, and Wikipedia is not a college course catalog. Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. There is no wide media coverage of the class. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have articles on every course at every school and college, and there is nothing at all to suggest that this one is in any way special. Early version of the article unambiguously qualified for speedy deletion as promotional, and the current version is not far off from the same fate. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep - Comments on the talk page indicate significant interest of several editors in improving the article to a high standard. While WP:GNG has not been demonstrated - there is an excellent case that it will be if these editors get some instruction. I also hope that we could meet this good will with a bit of tolerance — perhaps soon this type of course may become available in virtually all political study departments ;-). I therefore recommend it should be allowed to develop with a view that it could be deleted or moved to wikiuniversity in a couple of months. BO; talk 23:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because someone speculates that notability may one day be demonstrated: we need actual evidence that there is notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- For the record, I have created a page to guide these editors. There is also a userpage version. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. As for BO's suggestion, that's what the sandbox is for. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sandbox is for learning to use wikisyntax. any page there is subject to deletion without discussion. Also it is not a good place for multiple editors to collabotate, they will not be able to find the article that they work on a subpage in the sandbox. BO; talk 09:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he was talking about a user's personal sandbox. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete, fails GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all notable. Even the one and only person wanting "keep" says that notability has not been demonstrated. Need one say more? Elton Bunny (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2012 (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.