Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaissance Kingdoms

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Kingdoms

Appears to be a non-notable browser based game. Prod removed by author. I knwo the article listed 52,000 players, but I'm till not sure if the game is notable enough Wildthing61476 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While 52K players would help the in its nobility, this page has nothing verified, lists no reliable sources (or any sources at that) and as it is written by one of the particpants, it may consitute original research and vanity.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V.--Peephole 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No references, and unlikely to get any. Alexa rank over 200,000 - whilst a poor tool, this certainly says we're not missing something the world thinks is special. LinaMishima 17:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The entry was made by three people that i know of. Although maybe more have done. More than 52k people have played the game but its 52k active players. On our forums for the game there is a thread dedicated to this where we have been discussing this entry. http://www.acilion.com/englishforum/index.php is the forum. Anything that has been put on the entry can be verified there. Or you can go to the french forum, cant remember the link for that off top of my head WP:Software is not a policy yet so you cant count that gaainst it. I may also participate i nother stuff on wikipedia if i find the time. Im busy at the moment with my own site.Trect 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Trect (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Peephole 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - amazingly badly written and no notability sourcing /in the article/. BlueValour 23:30, 17 August 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.