Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChallengeYou


 * 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   merge to List of multiplayer browser games.  MBisanz  talk 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ChallengeYou

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

Non-notable browser game. No reliable sources that provide significant coverage. Articles fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- I think The Guardian is reliable enough, and it seems to be significant coverage. Also, article complete passes Wikipedia policy WP:V. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whilst the Guardian is a reliable source and has boderline significant coverage, it is the only source that comes up with google news and notability requires multiple. --neon white talk 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N. Trivial mention in a notable source and extensive coverage in a non-notable source just doesn't cut it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I thought that only one reliable source should encourage other editors to find another source, and not just simply write the article off as another unsourced article.  Elm-39 - T/C/N 12:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried and couldn't find any. --neon white talk 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect and list at List of multiplayer browser games. I'm looking at WP:N. Is the coverage significant? The Guardian - good source, but only two sentences. The Gamer Report - I can't tell if this is a WP:SPS or a WP:RS. If I give the benefit of the doubt, that's one item of significant coverage. Per N, this is borderline notability and is more suitable for inclusion in a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:NOTE X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Agree with Ks64q2 that The Guardian is reliable enough, even if it is brief coverage. Also, other similar games have approximately the same degree of coverage. Fracked (talk) TIME 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Guardian reference is no more than a paragraph on of the Guardian's blogs. It might be slightly helpful in a larger article about game engine tools. But here it's little more than a trivial mention, which means it isn't enough to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:WEB.--Sloane (talk) 17:13, 20 March 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.