Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Game


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Game

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

In-universe or at best forum sources; no third-party evidence of notability. Biruitorul Talk 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G11) — Among everything else wrong with the article, blatant advertising/spam. Even if sources are found, it needs a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: I don't see blatant spam and the "everything else" is a matter of opinion.  In reference to the advertising I guess we can't have any article that covers facts on a game, website, company or entity.  Looks like countless articles need to be removed.  Besides the following is also in G11 criteria: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."  As far as the rewrite goes, I feel it follows the intent so that is a matter of opinion as well.  It is a useful tool for anyone learning more about this type of activity.  And if learning about something is wrong ... then again, countless articles need to be removed.  Not all of us are perfect encyclopedia writers.  But by allowing folks to edit and evolve this page then the site improves (in your eyes) and more folks learn the intent of "encyclopedic."  Whatever that is.  dsch2oman, 15:07, 4 Oct 08. — Dsch2oman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Lacks the necessary coverage in multiple reliable sources, which is needed to assert notability. Nothing coming up in a search. Someoneanother 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A gameguide, because it has no reliable sources to make an encyclopedic article. gnfnrf (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: "Nothing coming up in a search" - seems to me that there is quite a lot on Google. If anything, I think it's more appropriate to rename to "KingdomGame" from "Kingdom Game" - looks like to me that the extra space is confusing the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.199.18 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing usable coming up in a search. Specifically a video game needs enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to write a balanced article with, ten or a million listings of the game with nothing more than a few lines of blurb, or more in depth coverage in Joe Schmoe's blog does not cut the mustard. Either the game has been reviewed etc. or it hasn't. Someoneanother 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: The game has been reviewed and when i'm not on a work computer i'll bring those up. Also the correct spelling is Kingdom Game, and originally introduced as KingdomGame.net now as a stand alone game it *is* Kingdom Game. The first convention for Kingdom Game is the 10th of OCT. along with that is a international press release, maybe this page is a little early but it's not qualified for deletion. I do think some of the things that aren't encyclopedic, e.g. tables for the trainings, need to be removed. Also i do no believe that this was written as an advertisment, there are no loaded words showing a point of view towards the game in question. MikelZap (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Providing information to readers on how much it costs to sign up, for instance, is considered advertising and is not appropriate. MuZemike  ( talk ) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources (WP:N) alone qualifies the article for deletion. I am interested to see what sources you have but bear in mind press releases and conventions are not independent of the game itself and do not qualify as secondary coverage. Someoneanother 16:29, 6 October 2008 (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.