Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VTOL VR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Star Mississippi 01:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
VTOL VR
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- VTOL VR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poor quality and largely unreliable sourcing. Insufficient amount of significant and reliable coverage to be notable. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Maryland. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. As the articles creator, I believe it should remain an article because its one of the most significant flight sims, and the most significant mil. flight sim other than DCS. So there obviously should be info on it here and it shouldn't just be a red link. On sourcing, having compared my article to others (especially in the flight sim genre) it is sourced BETTER than others such as SimplePlanes or something like Falcon 4.0: Allied Force because those use older/unreliable sources or are using primary sources (such as Steam pages), whereas this article uses secondary sources that are considered reliable (for example I have definitely seen roadtovr.com used in other articles e.g. Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown). Although I'm new to Wikipedia, it seems like your distinction of what is 'reliable' seems opinionated and not based on fact. If you have issues with the quality of the article then you can improve it, instead of just being lazy and deleting it. Thanks.
- PrimevalTea (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @PrimevalTea Could not find any mainstream coverage of the game outside of the niche of roadtovr.com and similar sites. Falcon 4.0. at least has a reliable print source, while AC7 has significant coverage as a major AAA game. Remember, it's not your problem that a game has minimal coverage, it's the game's own fault. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Go D. Usopp You have a fair point. I reread WP:NOTABILITY and understand more now.. The 'reliable' aspect still seems debatable, especially around game reviews considering that reviews are opinion-based things so reliability on a per-site basis seems silly (I've seen some really insane takes even on 'reliable websites' such as metacritic). PrimevalTea (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @PrimevalTea Metacritic is sourced only for the game's score. Reviews are important not because of the point of view, but because it means that the game is well known enough to be covered. There are standards to determine which websites should be reviewed, because practically anyone can make a website and type the most basic ass review if there were no limitations. Blogs, YouTube videos and Fandom don't count for this reason. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Go D. Usopp Thanks for explaining this. PrimevalTea (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @PrimevalTea Metacritic is sourced only for the game's score. Reviews are important not because of the point of view, but because it means that the game is well known enough to be covered. There are standards to determine which websites should be reviewed, because practically anyone can make a website and type the most basic ass review if there were no limitations. Blogs, YouTube videos and Fandom don't count for this reason. Go D. Usopp (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Go D. Usopp You have a fair point. I reread WP:NOTABILITY and understand more now.. The 'reliable' aspect still seems debatable, especially around game reviews considering that reviews are opinion-based things so reliability on a per-site basis seems silly (I've seen some really insane takes even on 'reliable websites' such as metacritic). PrimevalTea (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @PrimevalTea Could not find any mainstream coverage of the game outside of the niche of roadtovr.com and similar sites. Falcon 4.0. at least has a reliable print source, while AC7 has significant coverage as a major AAA game. Remember, it's not your problem that a game has minimal coverage, it's the game's own fault. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 00:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC) - Of the sources presented in the article, VR today magazine is the only one with an editorial team. I'm having trouble finding other coverage. It's an unfortunate Delete from me. SenshiSun (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately. The sourcing available for the article is not sufficient here to prove notability. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- 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.