Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Wars


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blood Wars

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:WEB, no reliable, third-party published sources. The only independent source is a brief review on an otherwise non-notable website. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's currently a single medium-sized review cited, but it's unlikely that it's reliable and alone it doesn't help build a credible, neutral article per WP:N. A search reveals a lot of false-positives, apparently there's a collectible card game based on the Planescape universe, there's also recent film, a book by Brian Lumley.. it did turn up on some totally unreliable MMOG sites (basically they're features-lists, no real analysis at all) and that's it. Very happy to switch and support retention if some reliable sources can be dug up (same with all video games), but these free MMOGs have exploded in number and there's no network of magazines and websites out there ready to scratch the surface. Someoneanother 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someoneanother 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has someone asked a Polish speaker to look into this? It seems a bit judgemental to nuke stuff for what will effectively be years or perpetuity without checking in its own language. --Kiz o r  06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it's a legitimate review, it's still a single, medium-length review, which falls short of WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One more referecnce addedSzeszej (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From yet another non-notable resource. Per WP:SOURCES, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - It fails WP:N and WP:RS. Unless a third party, reliable source does some kind of coverage on this game, it has no place on Wikipedia. - Raziel teatime  22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can seemingly be speedy deleted per CSD G7 now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that tag was incorrect, there have been more than 1 major editors on this article. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can being hosted by a notable portal such as interia.pl press release be considered to adhere to point 3 Notability_(web)? If so I would be more than happy to add it of course if it would also save the article from deletion. Also would sites such as this user-made calculator-compedium account towards the notability of the game? Szeszej (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would consider those only if there were already multiple high-quality articles on which to base an article. Right now, we need the foundation of the article itself, not some outside factors which may suggest notability but don't help us with our main task, which is building an encyclopedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (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.