Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Adventures Inc.

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 . Merge argument doesn't seem to make sense. Shii (tock) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Adventures Inc.

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

Not notable enough. Only primary sources are referenced. Knight rider best (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 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) 12:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established video game maker whose products have been covered in reliable independent sources. I would suggest merging the company's games into this article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:NOTINHERITED. In what reliable secondary sources has the company been the subject of significant coverage? Plus one of the games is in AfD and the other doesn't list any GNG sources either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding the "not inherited" policy. This is an article on the company and its products. So if the products are notable that does in fact establish the notability of this subject since that's where the products are covered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems Star Quest I: In the 27th Century might be notable after all, I'd tentatively say Merge the company's article to their only notable product. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it make more sense to merge the video game article into the article on the parent company? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. From the looks of it, the game is indepently notable. The company isn't. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But can't the game be covered adequately in the company's article? And doesn't this make more sense from an organizational standpoint? Would you have an article on an Apple product but no article on the parent company? That would be very strange indeed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally it may make sense, however we have articles on notable topics; game is notable, company isn't. Thus, article about the game and not the company. See WP:NOTINHERITED above. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:38, 12 September 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.