Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrior Knights


 * 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. Consensus is that coverage is insufficient to cross the notability threshold.  Sandstein  05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Warrior Knights

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

The Warrior Knights board game does not appear to be notable. There is no statement in the lead indicating why it stands out from the mass of board games. The fact that a famous designer may have worked on it is not, by itself, adequate for notability, even assuming the designer is notable as alleged on the talk page. Compare the guideline for books, being a book by a famous author it is not, by itself, adequate for notability. It has been marked since December 2007 as needing references. In External links, the so-called review in French is more just a description of the game. The link to BoardGameGeek gives more information, but little to provide notability. It ranks the newer version of Warrior Knights at 272 in board games, and 406 in wargames, and the original even lower at 948 in board game rank, and 643 in wargames rank. It has few incoming links, all of which are lists. Delete for lack of notability. Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete cannot find sufficient coverage  Chzz  ►  05:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep the BGG ranking is actually not bad, but more importantly, would appear to be reliable reviews. Further, I'm very confident that there will be reviews in specialized paper publications. Hobit (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are reliable sources, but those are not reviews, they are basically listings. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the first one isn't, but the militarygamer one is a review, it actually talks about the game. However, just having one or even two reviews does not make a board game notable. --Bejnar (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the first. But I disagree on your main point.  2 or 3 RS reviews would meet the letter of WP:N.  There is certainly wiggle room there, but that would be multiple reliable sources.  Finally I found those with 30 seconds of looking.  There will be a lot more reviews given the publisher. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is one of significant coverage. No significant coverage has been shown.  Given the publisher, a notable game should have had more coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, minimal coverage on a couple of gaming websites. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are so many large-scale gaming publications that if a game has a foothold, it's usually not nearly this hard to find coverage.  I don't see any reason to stretch the notability criteria for this category. Chick Bowen 02:32, 9 September 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.