Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Train2Game

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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Train2Game

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

No evidence of notability; fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. Please see discussion at Talk:Train2Game#More sources needed. Note: I am also nominating related page Skillstrain for the same reasons. If there is a consensus that the lawsuit is notable, I will create a page for it. Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline delete without prejudice - these appear to have been promo spam that then had WP:RS evidence of odiousness added. They may or may not be notable as a scam, I suggest that at present this isn't quite noteworthy. It may become more so over the course of this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, from a survey of available sourcing, that this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:CORP. It's also apparent that, while the article may have had its start as WP:PROMO, nothing has been offered to lift it above that level. Qworty (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:RS only extends to the Controversies of the company - not the company itself. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:PROMO, and any claims of notability only appear to lie within the controversies surrounding the company. Zappa O Mati 05:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is clearly conflicts of interest and nothing to enhance the name of Wikipedia is retaining an edit war. Nor can it be proven that those editing the article have contacted the interested parties directly to verify claims. The claims only appear to be based on third party references which could also be from conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — 84.16.42.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - for the reasons stated here, not that it also overlaps substantially with Skillstrain which is also up for deletion. Shritwod (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above reasons Adycarter (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zappa. – SJ + 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As well as per my comment at Skillstrain's discussion. I mostly fail to see a significant claim of notability (supported by the correspondent independent, third party reliable sources) to establish how this topic meets the required notability guideline. Also, the controversies section (as I said on the other discussion) is made up of separate, trivial coverage that cannot be weighted in for notability. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but do the page for the lawsuit, and try and mention as many of Jan Telensky's puppets as you can Of course, I'm a little petty, but it's probably worthwhile keeping something around about it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or we can just file it under WP:DGAF. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I slightly feel it is of value to let people know their training is junk. As I infer from random Googling - yes, a totally reliable source, etc - people are being actively stiffed; the business model is to sell loans to people to buy crap training. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff-piece about (by?) non-notable person-or-small-group with big ideas but no properly verifiable footprint in the industry it claims. --AlisonW (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This could have been a snow delete a few days ago. Not enough reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:CORP. Mkdw ^talk 00:52, 2 February 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.