Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Dawn


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle Dawn
Non-notable game, prod removed without reason. Wildthing61476 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Peta 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete The game being non-notable is much like the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" saying. You may find it non-notable, but others may not. There's also other games out there I would consider "non-notable" and has a smaller player base than Battle Dawn like Well of Souls. Also, I don't know what you mean by a "prod" (I'm new...). If it was that box up at the top, it said I could remove it whenever I wanted to so I did --Osafune
 * "Prod" means proposed deletion. --Wafulz 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Products that are still under pre-release development (ie, Beta) are generally not notable unless exceptional reasons exist. In this case, they do not apear to. No means to verify outside of forums and online game listing websites. Whilst it's place on the MMORPG150 list may seem good, with only 300 odd votes and the list having such volitility, it cannot be used currently as an authoritative source. I attempted to clean up the article, but this proved very hard. LinaMishima 01:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * forgot to add that this is impossible to easily google test, thanks to the common wordform as a name. But that's how I got the MMO listing website details LinaMishima 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per LinaMishima. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Danny Lilithborne 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also,198 Unique Google hits, not all relevant. :) Dlohcierekim 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete Nuff said 8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.131.22 (talk • contribs) — 71.113.131.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, please say more AfD is not a vote, it is an informed consensus. This means we need to know your reasoning to be able to take your suggestion into proper consideration. LinaMishima 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh,well.. I just think it should stay beacause even though it is in Alpha stage at the moment,I think it is susposed to come out of Alpha somewhere in October. So,why not keep it for another month,let it improve and such by edits among the players,and save the time of having to redo it once it comes out of Alpha. I'm somewhat asking you guys to "give it a chance" in building up to your expectations and what-not. The original creator can try to make it more less of a guide,and more into a descriptive article about it. Sure it's a small game,but all games take time to grow.. P.S. not sure if you'll be able to tell or not,but this is the guy who said "nuff said" :-P Sorry for not really explaining my self at first,didn't really think that you guys would respond so fast!Jib Jibo 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Jake
 * Delete. The does not appear to meet criteria set out in either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. The material within it is not verifiable and is basically crystal balling, meaning that it is asserting future notability- it must be notable now in order to merit an article. --Wafulz 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dlohcierekim. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * O,:x Well,I guess I have no more to say v_v Also,sorry about not reading the rules about crystal balling and what-not,somewhat tired at the moment. G'night all of you,I need to get some shut eye! Jib Jibo 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) a.k.a Jake
 * Do not Delete We're running into a number of odd technicalities that can ultimately be ignored. The state of Battledawn has been labeled "Beta Testing."  The reasoning behind this label is that the game is updated on a regular basis as bugs and imbalances are discovered, but it has always been the same game.  Perhaps saying the game is in Beta Testing because of its regular updates is incorrect by most standards because this would also mean Windows Operating systems never left the Beta stage and most of the biggest PC games released in the past 5 years were still in their beta stages.  Regardless of its "Beta" titling, it is being advertised, played and updated as a full game.  I believe Micheal, Battledawn's developer, has dubbed it Beta because he feels it gives him the right to make changes as he pleases without feeling totally unprofessional until the game has gotten to a point that he feels is perfectly tuned and he is allowed to move on to a new project.  Frankly, I agree with this outlook because the only true testing a game can get is in the hands of the public and at least Micheal is humble enough to realize his game was not totally perfect upon release.  I'm insulted when I'm forced to fork out $50 for a game only to find out I'm just another Beta tester until the clean version is around after a number of months or even years.  As for WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE, Battledawn is only required to meet 1 of their criteria to satisfy Wikepedia's standards.  In WP:WEB, #3 states "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."  Any of the game listing sites on which Battledawn has been highly rated qualify as distributors of this type.  They are not merely distributing content so trivially as Newgrounds or Geocities are, but instead are listing Battledawn above other notable games in a ranking of quality and popularity.  Furthermore, WP:SOFTWARE #1 states that "user guides" qualify as the sort of independent publications that may define content as nontrivial.  Well, these game listing websites are, above all else, user guides.  Their sole purpose is to help game players find other games they may be interested in.  The fact of the matter is that Battledawn is a phenemenon on the internet that, though relatively small, has already made its mark.  It has sucked up a vast number of players from older games of similar genres and quickly earned their loyalty, not as testers, but players.  Yes, Micheal has reserved the right to make drastic changes in the name of improvement whenever he pleases, but if calling a game Beta is the cost of that right, I wish more games did so.  I say you leave the article up.  Perhaps it could use some work, but no argument here justifies its deletion so if no more information can be brought to the table, this process must be halted.   -Rockytastic 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment all the listing websites you talk about are lists open for anyone to add their game to, and the majority have a very low number of voters, causing significant swings in ratings for only a few votes. The clause you refer to is intended for major websites with editoral control, both of which these listings are not. LinaMishima 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Web based game, yet with only 14 unique ghits for 'link:www.battledawn.com', 2 of which are the site itself, and the rest are mostly game directories. --Aim Here 08:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, very very clear it's not notable right now. Predictions that it will become notable soon are not good enough. If that happens, you can always re-create the article, preferably including some links to major independent coverage, to demonstrate notability. My Alt Account 08:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  10:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 12:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article can be recreated when it gets out of beta and has some third-party notability. Lankiveil 12:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, non-notable game, and not even finished yet. J I P  | Talk 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Explain Notability From the comments above, it appears notability is granted rather arbitrarily. Could some Wikipedia policy define notability in any way that would exclude the aforementioned 3rd party websites from satisfying the necessary criteria?  It has been stated that games can be submitted by their creators and be swung to high rank with only a surge of votes, but how is that any different than a few editors being alerted to a game by its developer and some articles being written on it?  In fact, I am connected to much of the game design arena and pay special attention to the indie world of flash development so I can tell you that  this is not the first discussion questioning the value of these game list websites.  The general rule is that online gamers, especially in flash, are alerted to more games by "Top 100" websites than any other source.  How many articles on a specific flash game have you ever read?  How many were in "notable" publications?  -Rocky 06:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect to Notability (web), you do not pass 3 for being on those listings. The sheer number of them, and their individual non-notability results in a failure to pass. 3 refers to a major distributor, and quite clearly any listing with extreme swings and their #1 listing only having 400 votes is not major. This is confirmed by footnote 7, which finishes with "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." This applies quite clearly in this case. Get yourself a Stratics news mention, and you might have more chance. LinaMishima 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment When looking through the policy, I saw nothing excluding those third party mmo sites. Osafune
 * Delete. Other than being the "first" Flash implementation (note the lack of references for proof), this makes no claims of notability and does nothing to differentiate itself from the glut of browser-based strategy MMOs in the world. It being in beta is beside the point (would a World of Warcraft II beta be nonnotable?) but the lack of demonstrated notability IS the point. GarrettTalk 10:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Argument Unfounded. To believe that Battledawn is not the first of its kind or indeed no different from the "glut of browser-based MMOs in the world" evidences your inexperience with the game itself and/or the so-called "glut of browser based MMOs." Furthermore, it is actually impossible to "prove" that something is the first of its kind.  You run into the old "proving a negative" problem by attempting to show that no others of its kind exist.  It is then up to those that believe Battledawn is not the first of its kind to prove themselves by finding another game like it.  There is no lack of demonstrated notability, the argument here is whether or not the demonstrated notability above satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia.  Because no Wikipedia policy has yet been referenced to show that the 3rd party sites mentioned previously are excluded from the notability criteria, the article must remain. -Rocky 18:25,  13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See my above comment on notability. You are deliberately misinterpreting the notability guidelines. And remember, having an article on wikipedia is not the most amazing thing in the world. You'd do better to pester real news sites. LinaMishima 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment just found a thread on this on their forums, so posted a message. I'm normally more supportive, but there's no indication of any missed references in this case :( LinaMishima 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a crystal ball and it fails WP:WEB, as others have noted. It can always be re-created if the game catches on. Michael Kinyon 10:17, 15 September 2006 (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.