Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VR Bangers

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. RL0919 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VR Bangers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne with a history of what looks like promotional editing. Possible UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page: [1]. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? Simply by clicking on the sources cited in the article I find a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as VentureBeat, CNET and Vice. Obvious WP:GNG pass. feminist (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" isn't the test for a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability - take a read of WP:NCORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The VentureBeat reference looks to me like they've copied most of the information from the company website including a "statement" from the CEO and contains nothing that I can identify as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The CNET reference recounts information provided by Daniel Abramovich (the CEO) and fails WP:ORGIND. The motherboard reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from company sources (dependent coverage), also failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  The authors of both the CNET and Motherboard (Vice) articles have provided their own opinion on the service, so it's more than a simple recount of company information. CNET: "Imagine a nice house where you're sitting in a chair and she's doing pretty much everything you can think of." Motherboard: "While it probably would be nice for patients to put on a VR headset and forget they're at a clinic, I had some very practical questions about the process. For example, if you can't see, how do you make sure the semen gets into the cup? Also, how are they going to keep the headset clean? USC Fertility didn't respond to two requests for comment." Same with the Maxim source cited in the article (which I did not look at when making my first comment): "Is virtual reality porn in a hotel room a good idea? Yes, for the people getting off to it. Not so much for housekeeping. We apologize in advance." A quick Google News search reveals many other RS, including Engadget and Digital Trends, both of which include the author's own opinion. I'm sure there is more coverage if I look. And WP:NCORP is largely based on WP:GNG, as it should be. feminist (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, no independent in-depth information on the company, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established by several independent, relevant sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article creator and the above "keep" voter, Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne, has been indef blocked by ArbCom. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of this content could be perhaps soft redirected / merged to VR porn - if we had the article. The company, however, does seem to fail WP:CORP. Plus there is the issue of undisclosed paid editing. I was told that we will block and ban editors to discourage disruptive behavior even if it prevents them from making some other constructive editor, to drive home the point that disruptive behavior will be punished. Well, I think we should also drive this point home to spammers. Even if a company would be notable (and I am not saying this one is), deletion of their article, if they chose to advertise here through services of an undisclosed paid editor, is following the same logic as banning an editor who could and did create some fine content alongside of making disruptive edits. Just a thought. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 27 December 2018 (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.