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. The discussion determined that the subject did not meet notability guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MicroVolts[edit]

MicroVolts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable MMORPG, currently at closed beta version. Trivial third-party coverage. Delete; previously speedily deleted by me. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep There are 4 sources in the article. One looks like a good review, two others look to be press release-based (at a guess) and one looks okayish. Likely to see more coverage (good or bad) shortly and meets the letter of WP:N. Sourcing is very much on the weak side though. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two links are just press releases; the other two are not so much reviews as just overviews of the game features. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete routine reviews show existence not notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Just as a note, routine coverage does indeed meet the requirements of WP:N. Nothing in that guideline I'm aware of distinguishes routine coverage from any other kind of coverage. If the coverage for _this_ article is enough to meet WP:N is certainly debatable, but your reason for your !vote seems to lack any policy/guideline based reasoning. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources mentioned cover neither WP:N nor WP:RS. Only one of those sites has any editorial standards, none cover the topic extensively enough to meet WP:GNG, as the source has to pas WP:RS before being considered for WP:N. --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my reply above. --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. Lacks "significant coverage" to establish notability. Article appears to consist primarily of original research. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks coverage fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 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.