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The result was withdrawn. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active Worlds[edit]

Active Worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Most, if not all of the references utilized in the article are actually what you could call reliable. Most are derisive passing mentions, links to the product website, articles from another wiki (mind you, after research I found out developers maintain it, so it's a grey area.), and a dead link to presumably a Wells Fargo blog post. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Prune. (conflict of interest warning) The AW community fell apart a while ago. The article needs to be shortened to concise, verifiable statements in preparation for the death of the software or a possible revitalization of the community. Some more technical information about how content delivery works would be great. [1] Also, whoever has been writing the last few years of history is bad at writing and some of it is fabricated. ζompuλacker (tlk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Continued. And before someone makes a comparison between Wikipedia and a polished glass sphere, I mean that someone familiar with the subject matter should do it. Carefully. ζompuλacker (tlk) 04:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would not recommend rewriting or modifying the article in a way that would "prepare" it for eventual community death or revitalization, as per WP:SPECULATION. There is no absolute certainty or evidence that either will happen. Although, there could be notes or a mention of the declining community, but it should ideally be documented by a reliable source before doing so. --Roy Curtis (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, it can be noted if you like using forum posts as sources. I'm with Roy on not rewriting the article to prepare for the unlikely "revitalization" of any community. I'm still going for deletion, though. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (conflict of interest warning). There is absolutely no reason why an article like this, given its longevity (both as an article and as the software itself), should be removed based merely on references. Replace the references with better sourced content, or remove the aforementioned areas altogether. I'm not sure why you're being so quick to nominate virtual world articles for deletion instead of opting to improve them. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Longevity is not a reason to keep an article. Plus, I've looked and compared the most recent edit before nominating this article to the last edit before the first nomination. In between it, most of the "improvement" I've seen is basically equivalent to cutting off cancer cells without the radiation and chem treatment afterwards. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued. Now, that doesn't mean improvement won't ever happen, but it's going to have to take A LOT of it before I withdraw this nomination. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping it in its current incarnation and continuing to improve it with reliable sources? Since you and Roy have cleaned up most of the unreliable and unsourced content, I don't see why the article should be deleted. Not to mention that if the article can be improved through regular editing, it should be, instead of opting for deletion. This article can definitely be improved upon, and so deletion should not be considered. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you still have the issue of notability to address. According to DEL-CONTENT, if somebody has failed to throughly find new sources to verify the content, then it is grounds for deletion. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you, or anyone really, even tried to find new sources? As for notability, I don't think that should even be questioned, but I'll tell you what: I'll spend time tomorrow looking through sources to add and spend time rewriting the article, and then we can see if it fits your specific requirements. Would that be alright with you, sir? I am curious though why you have such a sudden interest in nominating virtual world articles for deletion: [2] [3] instead of opting to improve them. Deletion isn't always the answer, you know. I'm starting to wonder if you have some sort of agenda, since you seem unwilling to improve the article and would rather have it deleted as quickly as possible. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. My father was employed in the technical support field by AWI, and he got laid off. In addition, the whole "community" is almost as dead as a corpse. Obviously, you've suspected right about an agenda, and it's best that I just withdraw right now. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ActiveWorlds is an active 3-D virtual world with a long history. As such, it deserves a place in the Wikipedia as a supporting article to Virtual world. Although still a bit of a Wiki edit noob, I would be willing to edit the current article and provide better information and references for the information being presented versus being deleted from the repository. Bboemanns —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has little or no edits outside of this discussion — Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • This user already admitted he was an editor noob but edits only pages on which he has significant knowledge and experience — bboemanns (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2013 (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.