Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleKnight


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BattleKnight

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Browser game that fails WP:WEB. No sources are given to assert notability or reference the article in general. Tagged by me a month ago as not asserting its notability. Request on the talk page to improve it has not resulted in any improvements. Only sources given are references to the company web site and the game and references to online reviews which do not count as secondary reliable sources. MartinDK 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This game appears to be a notable inter-country phenomenon in Europe with very little presence in the U.S. 648,000 GHits, most seem relevant.  - Richfife 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Most? You mean to tell me that you looked through 648.000 GHits? MartinDK 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Kurykh  00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - google results show not just homepages for versions in at least 14 European countries (Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK), but also China, Korea, and Taiwan. No results in Factiva, Proquest, Infotrac, Newztext, however these are primarily English-language databases.  If a game has versions across 17+ different countries, there's surely something going on more than meets the eye. --Zeborah 11:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The appropriate guideline here is WP:WEB. Yes you get a lot GHits because each country gets its own bulletin board. There are NO secondary reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. You cannot argue your way around that. Gladiatus was deleted for the very same reason. If there are secondary reliable sopurces then where are they? Show the sources and I'll withdraw the nom. Until then policy and notability guidelines should be enforced. MartinDK 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on further consideration you're right - I'm thinking of this now from the point of view of writing the article, that without the sources there's no way of writing an article that isn't original research. Keep vote withdrawn. --Zeborah 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable secondary sources. Just because they've done a good job of advertising doesn't make them notable.--Yannick 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite strong presence across country lines, until it gets some credible third-party coverage (and there isn't really any that I can see), it doesn't merit an article here on en.Wikipedia. Fails WP:WEB. bwowen talk•contribs• review me please! 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.