Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Arthur's Gold


 * 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   keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

King Arthur's Gold

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable game by a non-notable publisher. It should also be noted that the creator vandalised the article for a similar game. There are also no sources. Benboy00 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NVG. Ansh666 20:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Very weak keep per sources below (some that I found). I'm not sure it passes the bar, but others seem to think so, and I'll defer to their judgment. Ansh666 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. You wouldn't know it from this horrible article, but there are a few reviews that show up quickly and easily on a basic Google search. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you list some of these reviews? That way we can know if any of the reviews are from reliable sources and they can be added to the article.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I found and  on the first page of Google. I don't know, it still doesn't seem to be good enough to me but maybe it is. Ansh666 03:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found only one usable source when I searched, which was a brief article from PC Gamer. I did see some reviews out there, but they were from various gaming blogs, none of which are of the type that are seen as so reliable that they'd be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines. The problem with the sites is that although some of them are very popular, popularity doesn't equate out to being a usable source. I have no problem with incubation, although I hesitate at the original editor vandalizing other articles. I'd probably recommend another user incubate at this time if anyone's interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment It was really weird: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Arthur%27s_World&diff=570934741&oldid=566323364. Benboy00 (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was basically copying the contents of this article currently over the article of a similarly-titled game but completely separate (except for possibly inspiration) game. Ansh666 19:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * indeed, but you would expect that even a new user would realise that thats totally unacceptable. Benboy00 (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rock Paper Shotgun is reliable enough for Wikipedia per WikiProject Video games/Sources. With the PC Gamer article that looks to be enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (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.