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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NanoMission[edit]

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

This article is likely a result of paid editing: see my post at COIN. As such it wouldn't be here if it weren't for some unethical dealings behind the scenes. The product also fails WP:N as it hasn't received significant discussion in reliable, third-party sources. Them From Space 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the Google News, Books and Scholar hits before other editors can claim them as evidence of notability. Are they all non-independent? Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hits I see are mostly press releases, and minor mentions. Coverage isn't significant enough to excuse the promotional nature behind the article. Them From Space 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a hit in BusinessWeek but little else. Nifboy (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two independent sources added. More mentions in Google Books. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:58, 16 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) 02:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. If this is notable somebody else will rewrite it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Weak delete - as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayGen, I feel the sources are merely re-worded press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Business Week article is sufficiently a RS for notability, and the sponsorship by the Wellcome trust is relevant also. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Business Week article is certainly good. Here's a mention on LibraryJournal.com. Here's another article. The book mentions are fairly minor, but there's three of them. There are also several science-related blog mentions, but they're not worth mentioning. SharkD Talk 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although several of the sources fall under 'reliable', they are not in-depth at all and I agree with Marasmusine that several of them are mere press-releases tweaked in order to create 'news', for very practical reasons this does not correlate with WP:N. Serious analysis is needed, not lip-service. The Library Journal piece for instance looks good at first blush, but further reading shows it's not the blog writer herself providing the information, and the bit about NanoMission is just academic garble followed by what looks like a copy-and-paste press release. The Business Week source spends very little time actually talking about NanoMission, instead going on about the expected lack of lab techs etc. etc. That's fine in terms of an article, but it's fuck-all use in filling out an article about NanoMission. The Digital Trends piece consists of 3 paragraphs, which is hardly a goodly sized source to start with, only one deals with the NanoMission series and even then only lists the 3 modules/games in turn and provides a minimal description. No, these sources might well be useful in writing up about education in this field but they're not good for writing about the subject of this article. Someone another 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage in any of the sources found. --Teancum (talk) 12:54, 23 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) 20:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Someone another. There's a lot of sizzle in the sources, but the steak - unrelated third-party notice in detail - simply isn't there. Sources seem to be either self-published, passing mentions, or just strange. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The small number of mentions are, as User:Someone another points out, very light weight and are actually just feel-good rehashes of a press release. The large amount of detail regarding aspects of the game is way over-the-top for an article, and if those details are omitted, there is nothing left to say other than that the game exists and is concerned with nanotechnology. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references to strengthen notability, but the article itself is no weaker overall than many of the other Serious Games articles like Global Conflict: Palestine. The many press releases and high attention and involvement from well-known institutions also show there is notability here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.117.238 (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're not aware, press releases don't count towards notability at all (WP:GNG). Marasmusine (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the Business Week article, plus the non-trivial mentions in "Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment" just tip this over the line, I think. Just. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. We have third-party coverage, but not that confident its in-depth and substantial enough to meet notability standards.--Pink Bull 04:12, 31 December 2009 (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.