Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud and Blood 2


 * 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. The consensus appears to be that, for better or worse, the current guidelines suggest that this article should be deleted. Deryck C. 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mud and Blood 2

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable. Seems to fail WP:WEB. Also, most of the sources are primary or blogs/forums. Mynameislatesha (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notable enough- hosted on over 100 sites (I'll see if I can get more exact figures) and over 6.5 million plays on Kongregate alone (which is more than GemCraft has, and that article is not up for deletion). The sources are of a similar nature to those for the aforementioned GemCraft and also Crush the Castle, due to it being quite hard to find reviews for mere flash-based, free games. -Branabus 16:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Branabus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Mynameislatesha (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This source that was listed in the article I would class as borderline reliable, as it was apparently written by a freelance writer (though no mention of whether they write game reviews professionally). However, I could find no other reviews in reliable sources, so this falls short of the multiple sources required by WP:WEB. If anyone manages to dig up more reliable sources, though, I could be persuaded to change my vote. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall just insert my rowing implement and say that it appears to meet Criteria 3 of WP:WEB (Mochi and Kongregate, I think, do have at least some form of editorial oversight, I think), and that the reviews of the game simply confirm its notability. Additionally, I would note that the fact that it's got more plays than Crush the Castle on Kongregate adds to this. Finally, although this isn't externally sourced, an in-game tip says that 'Mud and blood 2 is hosted on 920 web sites and generated 5.4 million views in 7 months', and considering that it's been out for around 3.5 years now, it should have a lot more. -Branabus 21:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are a good number of reviews out for the game, demonstrable if someone does a YouTube search similar to this. However, a few of these reviews are using older game versions released only a small amount of time after the actual release. Also, it ranks near the top in total traffic of the Kongregate gaming forums (link), at over 1000 topics and over 18000 posts. --Vborza (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Vborza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi Vborza. About the YouTube reviews that you linked to - are you aware of any that were written/filmed by established game journalists? We need to prove this to show that the sources pass our guideline on reliable sources. (Also see the policy on self-published sources.) Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On that note, I cannot verify the true identity of the accounts reviewing, although the reviews are not by me. The sources included here with the exception of clearly marked ones (which were accredited to the game creator), are from sites and people non-affiliated with the staff of mudandblood.net. In addition, this account was not made solely for purposes of this page as I originally intended it for other purposes but realized its viability here. I do however propose that we can change this when some more upcoming titles come out (such as notably Mud and Blood 3 and Mud and Blood: Recon) and then merge into a page called Mud and Blood (Game Series) or something along those lines. For that we must wait, but I believe we will get more game attention when there is a new release. Just my 2 cents. --Vborza (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Vborza, thanks for the reply. I'm afraid it's not enough for reviewers just to be uninvolved with the game creators - they must also be published in a reliable source, or otherwise be a reputable game reviewer. Otherwise anyone could write a review of their favourite flash game on their blog, and then claim that because there is a review that it should go in Wikipedia. Again, see our policy on on self-published sources, and also read our notability guidelines. Also, it wouldn't affect the notability of Mud and Blood 2 if the other games you mention are released - notability is not inherited. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to admin -- There seems to be an obvious WP:COI of two users who commented here, User:Vborza and user:Branabus; in fact I have already stated this fact near their comments (Branabus is the article's creator and Vborza is a single purpose account). Please take note of this. Mynameislatesha (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying a bit too hard to push this deletion through, which leads me to suspect a conflict of interest, TBEH. Also, in the case of Vborza, it's at least a 2-purpose account, although, of course, it does meet the criteria for a single purpose. Finally, finished your link- hope you don't mind? -Branabus 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the WP:COI document where it is noted that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. " ... It seems that you do not understand fully what a COI means. Please take a little of your time to read the guideline. Mynameislatesha (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done. The point stands. -Branabus 13:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no sources presented in the article, from what I can see, which come close to being reliable in WP terms, which are needed to verify information and demonstrate notability. I had a look for some via Google a few days ago and came back empty handed. GemCraft and Crush the Castle have been mentioned, while the presence of article X/Y/Z just confirms just shows that other stuff exists, they can both be demonstrated as being notable. Gemcraft has been reviewed on Pocket Gamer and GameZebo. Crush the Castle has been reviewed on IGN, Gamezebo and Pocket Gamer. The common denominator with those two games and the reviews is mobile gaming. Ever since the mobile gaming revolution kicked off a number of sites and magazines sprang up to cover them and existing game sites also started covering them. Browser games, flash games etc. have always had a very weak presence in the mainstream press, what little coverage there is can be covering several games in not-quite-enough detail for a WP article and very popular games are not given the coverage you'd expect they would. I have the same trouble, I'd love to create an article for The Last Stand (almost 8 million plays on armor games), but there's naff all sourcing available. Someoneanother 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suspect we need, as a community, to have a discussion about the notability of flash games. They're not like traditional video games as people aren't selling them and there's not much incentive for mainstream reviewers to review them. No one is disputing figures quoted in the article, such as having over 20 million plays. Whatever the criteria we will use in determining notability for flash games, I am sure this article would meet it. --Ifnord (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (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.