Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batheo

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 not to keep in mainspace as the article does not asert notability and does not have appropriate sources. I will userfy on request, or provide copy for anyone who wishes to use the material on Batheo Wikia. SilkTork *^YES! 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batheo

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

Not notable, and the article lacks reliable sources with which the verify it. Original PROD has COI concerns as well but I'll AGF here that the article's creator will have their username changed appropriately.

(IP contested prod with reason: "I just heard of Batheo today from Facebook, and Wikipedia's entry is the only description of the game I can reach through my internet filter.") OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy after author gets his account renamed. I think this deletion proposal is a bit premature. The article is clearly a work in progress, User:Batheo seems to be editing in good faith, and seems to by trying to do the right thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Author has completed renaming his account to User:Gamehelper. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Work in progress, though seeing some sources wouldn't hurt. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if consensus is to userfy, no? Let's just do it and end this. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See [1]. Not sure if the WP article is a copyvio of this site, or if this site is just mirroring the article. They were both created around the same time. In either case, userfying the article seems like the best idea to me. Needs major wikifying and sources. —SW— ^comment 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply looks like a scrape of the WP article- that link says posted 2 March 2011, the article was created 23:08, 22 February 2011. (forgot to sign, OSborn)
Keep or Userfy This looks like a good topic. I found several game review sites which had articles about this game. Maybe some work could be done to recruit some seasoned editors who are interested in browser games to help build this into a good article.OfficeGirl (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sister wiki site at Batheo Wikia where the players of the game are keeping information neutral and as unbias'ed as we can. I manage the site with others for content submission et al. Goldbishop (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not locate significant coverage from reliable publications. It is true that several game review sites cover Batheo, but none are considered reliable by the videogames wikiproject (MMOHut, and several other self-published sites). Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Batheo Wikia and delete. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.