Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Clans
- 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The result was Withdrawn. GB fan 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clash of Clans[edit]
- Clash of Clans (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)
In my searches I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article. There are currently 7 sources on the article. #1 mentions CoC once but is about online predators and says that CoC can be used by them in the one mention in the article. #2 does not look like a reliable source and once again mentions CoC but is not what the page is about. #3 is a forum post, not a reliable source. #4 once again is not about CoC but uses it as an example for what it is talking about. #5 again uses CoC as an example for something else, not a discussion of CoC. #6 is about Supercell, the producer of the game with mentions of CoC. #7 says that CoC is worth downloading. None of this provides significant coverage in multiple sources. A redirect to Supercell (video game company) would be appropriate. GB fan 13:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you taken a look at Google News results? Any comments about all the media coverage of the game including, quite recently, a possible Android launch? And this isn't even an archives search where even more results come up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't what's relevant here the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources? That the parent company is considering and IPO and that the game may come out in Andriod are getting covered a lot as this is one of the most successfull games of a hugely successful recent startup iOS game maker. The extent of the editing on the article also indicates just how popular it is, anecdotally. But again, isn't all the coverage it's getting what establishes that it is notable and merits inclusion? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what is important is the extent of the coverage of this game in reliable sources that discuss the game. If Supercell has an IPO that would speak to the notability of Supercell, not this game. That Supercell might bring the game to android does not speak to the notability of the game, even being released on Android does not say the game is notable. How much editing speaks to the popularity not the notability of the game so it means nothing in this discussion. What coverage is there of this game? GB fan 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That Supercell is considering an IPO but has only released two games, one of them Clash of Clans, speaks for itself. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 01:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, what is important is the extent of the coverage of this game in reliable sources that discuss the game. If Supercell has an IPO that would speak to the notability of Supercell, not this game. That Supercell might bring the game to android does not speak to the notability of the game, even being released on Android does not say the game is notable. How much editing speaks to the popularity not the notability of the game so it means nothing in this discussion. What coverage is there of this game? GB fan 15:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't what's relevant here the extent of coverage in reliable independent sources? That the parent company is considering and IPO and that the game may come out in Andriod are getting covered a lot as this is one of the most successfull games of a hugely successful recent startup iOS game maker. The extent of the editing on the article also indicates just how popular it is, anecdotally. But again, isn't all the coverage it's getting what establishes that it is notable and merits inclusion? Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (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) 01:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Highly successful game, as reported on in numerous reliable sources.[1][2][3]. Even I know about it, and I don't have a smartphone.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - are you serious? This game was once the highest grossing iOS app (until Candy Crush Saga came along). A simple GNews search comes up with more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NVG. The last section seems a bit WP:COATRACKish and can be removed, but the game by itself passes WP:N by a mile. Ansh666 03:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple google news source that there's enough coverage in RS to support this (particularly in light of being one of the highest grossing apps). --MASEM (t) 15:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google brings up dozens of reliable sources, and it has received sufficient coverage, as it is one of the top selling games on iOS. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:18, 23 September 2013 (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.