Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEGA of Virgin Islands

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 SNOW delete. Ok, it's had MORE than a fair trial. Time to execute it. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEGA of Virgin Islands

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any WP:RS via a Google search that indicate that this entity is notable - or that it even exists. The "Official Website" is nothing more than the SEGA logo, and I question if this is a hoax. I believe the article fails WP:V and WP:COMPANY. PDCook (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that the entity's web address is sega.vg, with "vg" likely meaning "videogames". Likely this entire article is a front for a domain squatter trying to take Sega's copyright and gain a pretty penny for selling it to them (not that there has been any landrush on .vg to speak of). As for the content, the usual argument; videogame companies only take ideas from developers with agents, not fans, and everything else becomes shredder fodder. YouTube channel has only been up for three weeks and all game marketing in the Caribbean is usually handled by the North American divisions with a few exceptions for those closer to Latin America. Nate • (chatter) 08:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought .vg was for the Virgin Islands. I guess that point is moot anyways; the article needs to go either way. PDCook (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Indeed, but many sites like bit.ly and del.icio.us are based on domain hacks like this one; for instance the Federated States of Micronesia sees heavy use of the .fm domain by radio stations. The same case seems to exist here, so it's basically a coatrack article IMO that's designed to say "we're a fan group...oh, and we'll sell our domain to you for the right price, Sega!" Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learn something new every day! PDCook (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's a legit subsidiary, one with 6 employees isn't worth mentioning in the parent's company article, let alone have a separate one. See WP:CORP. Pcap ping 13:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Come on, "focusing exclusively on fan-created content" and "attempting to license several amateur fan projects". Sure, that sounds really legit there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because

1. Creator Rick Fields, Resident of Virgin Islands and PR director for SEGA of Virgin Islands, has no other edits.

2. Article was created on January 19th.

3. On January 18th User 70.189.95.143|, added this "company" to the Cruz Bay, United States Virgin Islands article.

4. The You Tube "official channel" was launched on January 18th (but has no content).

5. You Tube pages quotes "British Virgin Islands" while Cruz Bay claims allegiance to the US VI.

in summary, no independent source proving existence. --Sussexonian (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2010 (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.