Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Empires: 1914-1918


 * 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. czar 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Empires: 1914-1918

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. There are no reliable sources talking about this game in an in-depth way. Most English/non-English sources are just screenshots gallery and wiki, instead of actual articles. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES. The 2 external links in the article are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Position It is planned to complete the article and the project much bigger similar addons Men of War: Vietnam, Men of War: Condemned Heroes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messer282 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... there aren't any refs. You need to have refs to have an article. Metacritic has a page for the game, but 0 reviews. The Steam website has 1,121 user reviews, which... I don't know what that means. Obviously some people have bought it. But "Valiant Hearts: The Great War" has ten times that number, so I guess 1,121 is not that much... OK, here is an actual review. The rest of the refs I can find seem to be just bare descriptions of the game. Need more references, at least one more full review, and absent that delete it I guess. Herostratus (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV, game's coverage currently is not significant enough to make it notable.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (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.