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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GKART[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. Also the article is somewhat promotional, though perhaps not enough so for speedy deletion as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not seem to be highly promotional, It is just like any other video game page on Wikipedia. As for the sources I do agree that as of right now there is not a sufficient amount of reliable sources, but this page can be salvaged because there are sources that provide the information necessary.--Ahenry32 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that there are not enough sources provided, but that we should keep on the basis of hypothetical sources which are not cited in the article, and which you don't provide? Unfortunately, that is not good enough. In order to justify keeping an article it is necessary to show that there are sources, not just to suggest that there are some, but not say what or where they are. As for "it is just like any other video game page on Wikipedia", you may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 5 July 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) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the developer or publisher article per WP:PRODUCT. The sources present don't show sufficient justification for a separate article. If I'm looking at this right, games.qq are owned by the game's publisher. Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English name of the game does indeed have little coverage. But if you search for QQ飞车 (QQ Speed), there is plenty of independent coverage [1], for example review in Sina.com [2] (links at the bottom of the article have additional coverage), etc. Another Chinese company even made plastic toys from the car models to cash in on their popularity, it seems [3]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.

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.