Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight Online (2nd nomination)


 * 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, bearing in mind the renomination. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Knight Online
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article lacks verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability. There were two serious issues from the previous AfD nomination. First, I believe the arguments to keep was not backed by any sources and seemed more as WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Second, the previous AfD was non-admin closed as a keep despite the fact that there was no clear consensus on keeping the article, nor was it a snowball keep. I decided to pass on sending it to WP:DRV and instead re-nominating it for AfD as it was not worth it for admin to look at it, it may have been construed as WP:POINT, and other users will be able to pass appropriate judgment per the argument and sources given. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the first source is reliable, but if it is 5 million subscribers IS notible and it should be Rewritten. However, 4 of the 6 links are dead links, and the article itself has numerous issues (most of it sounds like it's written as an add). RockManQ (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my main problem with the article in the first AfD. I don't know how verifiable the data from voig.com is. (I'm guessing the website pertains to tracking to subscriber data of some sort.) MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's only been a few weeks since the first AFD. Did anything significant change? If you do not agree with the consensus of the first AFD, then putting it through AFDs until it gets deleted is not the way to go. Oh, and per the previous afd: "Keep - Being the #4 MMORPG in the world cuts it for me, regardless of anything else. Even if the numbers are a bit off mark, #4 plus or minus two would still make this topic notable." User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if I went through WP:DRV, then I would have looked like a WP:DICK wasting admins' time trying to make a WP:POINT. I suppose it was lose-lose for me in this case. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Check out the articles on IGN's and GameZone's site.  I believe there is enough to make this at least a Start-class article.  Just clean out whatever does not comply with our guidelines.  These books  contain trivial information (which, to be clear, would not help establish notability) that could further flesh out the article.  Parties interested in having this article remain without trouble on Wikipedia should quickly integrate them into the article.  Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 30 August 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.