Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VSTEP

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 keep. Sources provided, so let's get writing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VSTEP

Appears to fail WP:CORP; no significant independent coverage of this games company. Previously nominated for WP:CSD#A7, though denied because there is an assertion of notability (unsourced). Most sources on the web appear to be press releases, game update notifications, or self-published. May largely violate WP:NOR. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —--/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless properly referenced to prove notability - there is no proof that this company is one of the leading developers in the European serious games industry as there are no references. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Source - Company had one of it's products researched by Utrect University here(pdf), Dutch article from Dag.nl on the serious games concept mentioning VSTEP here, Dutch Ministry of Economics report into the company and it's products here(pdf), CTO quote here, publishing deal and more company info here. I think more source could easily be found in Dutch (particularly CTO interviews of Pjotr Van Schothorst), but that's not a language I can speak, I'm afraid. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for obvious notability, as stated above, as long as editors don't choose to ignore it.

More non-existing independant coverage: [1], [2], [3].

Another question, how can a developer of a game that is considered notable, not be notable?

Apologies to open-minded editors for my tone, but I get extremely annoyed by delete-happy editors who close their eyes for what is shown, and still keep going on about a lack of sources. GameLegend (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then, please, be bold and improve the article as requested by the other contributors to this AfD. I'd gladly withdraw my request if you could include those sources that you show. Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already stated on the talk page where half of these sources could be found.

But how do you implement just a source talking about the company? The only thing that a newspaper article could really reference is that the company makes serious games, but does that need referenced? (note: this is not about the reference for statements such as leading serious games developer and award-winning; this whole ordeal is about notability).

I don't know if I have the time this weekend, but at least up till now, I did not have the time to go and figure that out. That's why I provided the information. GameLegend (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS- just because they make a game that is notable does not mean they themselves are notable. --/ Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not about the Pokemon test. This is about the creators of something notable, who are of course also mentioned in the coverage of that product. GameLegend (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak Keep Their games are known (Ship Simulator), but article needs more work. Keeping the page rests on the article being improved dramatically. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sources can be found. If not, merge to serious game. MuZemike (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article clearly needs work, there are some bold statements that need referencing. As others have said above keeping the page relies on it being dramatically improved. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:04, 25 June 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.