Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for the Galaxy

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. czar 15:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle for the Galaxy

Battle for the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lack significant coverage from reliable secondary source. Also a WP:PROMO article written by the developer's head of marketing. The1337gamer (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. I found announcements: [1] from Pocket Gamer, [2] from Adweek, and [3] from 148apps.com. But announcements aren't good enough to establish notability; we need reviews. It looks like the developer is also up for deletion, and I'm not sure it will survive, so I've voted to simply delete this article. If the developer's article survives, we can redirect there. Or maybe Ninja Kiwi, the publisher. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per NRP; I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources either. --Izno (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

From author

Hi, I understand, that the problem is that I work for the owner, however I made the article only with facts, there is no promotional materials (except screenshots maybe) in the text. Text describes how well game performed and how is it played. As for reliable sources you mentioned, that you need reviews - there are 110000 reviews in google playmarket, yes it's not from a one big source, but it's the real people accounts commenting on the game. Please consider to keep our article, as it's a notable project in many points. And these points are:

• Best quality graphics in similar games category (even Clash of Clans graphics are simplier)
• Cross-platform availability (unlike Clash of Clans again, the game is available also for pc/mac users, not only mobile)
• Multi-language - even though some translations are still being worked on, there are 5 complete manual translations.
• And well as Google Play Market says the game reached more than a million, but less than 5 million downloads.

As for the NinjaKiwi being mentioned as the developer in Play market - the game is being moved to our account, as the contract with NinjaKiwi has ended. So they are actually publishers. I can provide proof within a month, after the completion of transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly discourages COI editing, but it's not forbidden. The bigger problem is depth of coverage in the media, which Wikipedia uses as its inclusion criteria. Topics which haven't been the subject of "significant coverage" are routinely deleted, though what this phrase means exactly is up to editor interpretation. For pop culture, such as video games, it's often reviews by professional journalists. Number of downloads, user reviews, and features generally don't affect the outcome. We had to draw the line somewhere, and this is where we drew it. Articles like the above Adweek source carry some weight, but that one is basically a glorified press release that says "someone released a video game". The best way to demonstrate notability is to locate published reviews from professional journalists. They don't need to be online or in English, but if there's no coverage, we don't really have anything to say about the topic. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a catalog of every game ever made, but there are already websites that do that, such as Wikia and MobyGames. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

So, how much time do I have to improve the sources? I believe we need an article on wikipedia, so I'm gonna put some effort in it. Can the page be drafted until then, not deleted? I wouldn't be happy to write it down all again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions usually last for one week, but they can be extended up to twice, for a total of three weeks. It could be moved to draft space or your user space. I'd be fine with that, personally. It seems entirely possible that this could eventually become notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and last question, after I add more info and sources, do I have to inform anyone anywhere to check the page again? Or how is it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to alert people that you've made improvements to the article is to simply say so here. Luckily, there's a lot of help available for writing video game articles at WikiProject Video games, including a list of sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - As of this relist, it appears that the article author has added multiple reviews by sources with editorial control, which meets our WP:GNG. I'm satisfied for notability. Fieari (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fieari: Did you even read the article and check the sources? The only website used that is on the list of reliable video game sources is Pocket Gamer and that article is not even a review.

• The Pocket Gamer quote is not a review. It's just a sentence from a standard news article that briefly describes the game. There is no critical commentary whatsoever.

• Nine Over Ten is a one-man self-published blog with no indication of editorial oversight or policy. Evidently does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

• Mob Core is not a review either. It's just a quote taken from a product page to download the game. No critical commentary whatsoever.

• The GG citation just directs to Mob Core.

• The App4Smart reviews are written by non-staff editors. They are essentially self-published user reviews. Not reliable sources.

• For Gamehub.vn I see no indication of editorial oversight or policy. It's not even clear the article editor is a member of staff.

If you're going to participate in AfDs then put some effort in your checks. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Mob core is a pure review, there is not citation in it from a product page, also it has a version in russian http://mob-core.com/android_games/2943-bitva-za-galaktiku.html. and the reviews contains critical thinking on pros and cons.
2. Added the gg correct link, but this one is more of a citation from product page though.
3. Gamehub.vn article has logotyped images and authors profile is marked as "editor" and "admin". There are also 2 lesser articles about BFTG on this website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Sourcing, even after the recent efforts, largely consists of obscure/unreliable sources, or ones that don't offer significant coverage or third party coverage. (For example, the 148apps source is merely a database entry, likely ripped from the game's entry in one of the app stores.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 16 September 2016 (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.