Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS1

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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VBS2 TNT applies but recreation of a better article is encouraged. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VBS1[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)

Unnotable piece of software, with the article written under obvious COI. Fails WP:GNG and is mostly unsourced, aside from the ad-ridden customers list (which also mostly relies on primary sources). Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All current sourcing is primary. Press releases or news clippings from the companies directly involved. I found very few reliable sources that mentioned it, and usually in the context of mentioning it was a more military-oriented derivation of the game it was based on, Operation Flashpoint, or as a passing mention in pieces otherwise devoted to Flashpoint. For each of the entries, VBS1, VBS2, and VBS3, I have found maybe 1 solid source that could be considered indepth. On their own, I cannot find enough independent coverage to say GNG is met. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but TNT each of these individually into a new article free of COI. Bohemia Interactive Simulations, VBS1, VBS2, VBS3 are each sprinkled with some secondary sources on top of comments in each individual AfD. The fact that the military is training with video game like software is notable as evidenced by the multiple news agencies reporting it (whichever version it happens to be). A single VBS series article would seem logical as the general use of the software (not the versions/updates themselves) appears to be what is notable. Perhaps there is another military video gaming trainig article out there to merge/redirect to, but I couldn't tell you where that is. -2pou (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 17:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with 2pou's TNT + merge suggestion. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I Haven't yet researched articles for this version myself, but did find good coverage of the sequels. I can only assume coverage of the first is decent as well, and either way, that is irrelevant if we make a franchise page - notability for edition wouldn't need to be secured for it to still be worth covering. Page is mostly crap at this point, needs to be cut down like the others, but plenty in short to build something else out of the mess. I'm including some examples of the coverage for VBS2, not to prove VBS1 is notable, but to show the franchise at large is notable. Question would be what to move to. Virtual Battlefield? Or VBS (videogame franchise? I think the latter might be too complicated for a central location.

70.240.207.189 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would merge to Virtual Battlefield Systems, which seems to be the full name. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it's "Virtual Battlespace". Lordtobi (✉) 13:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the name, my bad - I've been playing Battlefield V lately. 70.240.207.189 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed to have used both "battlespace" and "battlefield systems", but both of the domains they previously used for PR seem to be dead/parked now. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through sources, it seem they used Virtual Battlespace consistently since VBS2 and as recent as November. This name should be appropriate. Lordtobi (✉) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. If the decision is to merge everything to Virtual Battlespace with subsections for the three editions, I would be happy to stitch the history sections together. The best sources are currently clustered in VBS2 while the other two are mostly filler and routine press announcements, so VBS2 content might be the best starting point. Note that the features/technical sections are essentially gobblygook to me, and unsourced, so I would rather not be the only pair of eyes slicing those sections up. I would rather not just delete them myself, as I assume there are at least some useful wikilinks and terminology in there, which could be sourced over time. Formatting question: Separate infoboxes for each edition, in addition to a franchise infobox? 70.240.207.189 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2019 (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.