Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conquer Online

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. John Lake 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conquer Online

Conquer Online (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Seems to be a non-notable game. Google does not reveal any WP:RS that would indicate that it passes WP:WEB. Leuko 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe WP:SOFTWARE applies to this game. --Aquatics 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the notability requirements are essentially the same, it doesn't pass that either. Leuko 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a notable game, pretty high Alexa rank for something like this. A simple english Google search is not enough to establish that this does not have any reliable sources - the game seems to be primarily played in China. --- RockMFR 08:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - although the article perhaps requires cleanup, I think the game is notable enough to deserve a page. As it seems to be based in China, perhaps that's where the sources are? Ale_Jrb^talk 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & cleanup, per RockMFR. Alexa ranking of just under 8000, not far behind Blizzard's ranking of about 2500. 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, will change to keep if someone shows reliable sources. I can't find any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup per Ale_Jrb --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it "seems to be a non-notable game" to one person doesn't mean that it is. The nominator needs to provide a better explaination to delete it then just a gut instinct. I vote keep since I don't see evidence to the game be not notable. --Pinkkeith 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the reason that I called it not notable is that I didn't see any evidence in the article it was notable. It wasn't "gut instinct," but a lack of WP:RS. Leuko 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It's a good start but it definitely needs more references besides the official website/forums (although most references may be in Chinese, and if that's the case, what's the policy for references that are in a foreign language to the native language for this particular Wikipedia which is English?) --Rambutaan 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - will also change to keep if anyone shows reliable sources. At present it's a game guide (NOT a game guide?) and little else. There's not one third party reference? MidgleyDJ 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd also add that I dont think notability is asserted in the article. Also if it's going to stay then much of the fancruft needs to be removed. MidgleyDJ 07:15, 15 November 2006 (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.