Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. no consensus for deletion in regards to WP:N/coverage JForget 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vr-zone[edit]

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

This entry is mainly advertising the site. Only one source which only talks about a scam one forumer conducted in its forums 116.15.93.174 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. Here is the deletion log for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Vr-zone A previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vr-zone was closed as "no consensus". -- Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep no reason to speedy delete. That anon at 116.15.x.x is persistent, perhaps a competitor? Anyway VR-Zone does get a whole web page coverage on quite a few other web sites, (I don't know how independent these are, but I added some to external links section). VR-zone seems to be used as a reference site for some other sites. Advert text could be stripped back, rather than chopping the whole article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic Delete this is not a notable topic. I noted a Spore hardware website last week that was - don't accuse me of discriminating. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak Keep but massive cleanup needed for this. Like colossal cleanup required. Some independent references should be put on, but I think there is something useable on this, even if it is just a short paragraph. If we are certain there no independent sources please count my vote as a delete, but I think there must be something in the thousands of GNews and GHits DRosin (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has claimed notability when it states that Currently, VRForums is one of the most popular IT discussion forums in Singapore. It discusses topics ranging from computer technical news to gossipy celebrity news. It also currently hosts one of the most popular “Marketplace forums” in Singapore. It needs cleanup, but it contains some possibly useful content. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:54, 2 January 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.