Talk:VSTEP

NPOV

Notable or not, the profile section seems like it's ripped straight from marketing materials. I started trying to improve it, but most of the content is so fluffy, you'd be left with a sentence or two. If this article is to remain, I think it needs some serious work. For now I just put a POV disputed header on the section. 121.72.172.4 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well I ripped out the stuff that was unsalvageable, mostly anything referring to "leading" and "setting the standards" as well as some purple prose describing Rotterdam. Still needs some citations and work, though. 121.72.172.4 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Senseless deletion urges

For some reason, probably because nobody ever heard of serious games, people keep tagging this article as an unnotable company. While it blows my mind that a tag has been used twice now that says the article doesn't make it seem notable, I don't think there can really be a discussion about the notability of a company that has a leading position in the European serious games industry.

I've just started this article, but to make sure that someone else goes delete-happy on it for no obvious reason, I invite anyone with such urges to visit the developer's news-website, which should say enough (3rd party articles, government prices): News on VSTEP.nl

Happy editting! (not deleting)

GameLegend (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Name calling and questioning other editors' motives is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Please see WP:CIVIL. The article should show the notability of the subject using reliable sources. At this time, the article has no reliable sources for any of the information in the article. Do you know of reliable sources that explain notability? Weregerbil (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've been name calling, just explaining a weird behavioural patern.

There are two things here: the article asserting notability, and the sources backing that up.

The assertion is there, the sources are just missing from the article. That's why I put it here, untill I found time or someone else felt like doing it. GameLegend (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance tags from the article. They signal that the article is work in progress, and that reliable sources are being sought. Removing the tags without addressing the problem they point out could be taken as indication that no sources shall be forthcoming. Unsourced and non-notable information is subject to deletion per Wikipedia policy. Weregerbil (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying the Dutch government and a big international financial concern are not reliable sources? GameLegend (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Big international financial concern": no, if they have a financial interest in what they are saying; and "a big company bought shares in a small company" does not signify notability, however sourced.

The report: is that an actual government source or rather made for a ministry by some company? I don't know Dutch, but do the words "in opdracht von" (page 2 of the report) mean something like "commissioned by"? The report indeed mentions this company, along with a few dozen more. The article uses the report in a sentence about an award given in March 2008, yet the report is dated 2007 and the only mention of 2008 (footnote on page 7) does not appear to mention this company. Can you please point out where the report mentions the award?

Where does the claim that this is one of the leading developers (or "has a leading position") come from? Any sources? Weregerbil (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)