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 Keep and stubify. Editors are advised to read, and re-read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT a gameguide and WP:NN before adding to this article (and its offspring, List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks). ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GunBound[edit]

GunBound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE. Google finds nothing but self-published pages and the odd strategy guide. Article is more instruction manual then summary from reliable sources-of which none seem to exist in any case. Seraphimblade 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has it occured to you that its 3,790,000 Google hits indicate widespread popularity for this game? Punkmorten 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not searching correctly. Google search using correct title brings up only 266,000 hits[1]. Plus, raw score is not enough - quality and context of hits matters too - and even then google count is only a possible indicator not a guarantee of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 12:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I'm not familiar with a "popularity" criterion in WP:WEB, and was looking more at the quality of the hits then quantity. "Gun" and "Bound" are common words and very likely to cause a large number of hits. Seraphimblade 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has it occured to you that only 788 or those Google hits are unique? And that this Wikipedia article is the fifth hit? And that most of the rest are forum posts/blogs/self-published sites/Wikipedia mirrors? --RoninBK_ETC 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside See WP:GOOGLE#On_.22unique.22_results for why all searches give less than 1,000 "unique" hits. --Groggy Dice 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Quite correct. I think the lack of quality hits is much more an issue then the lack of unique ones-if there aren't any secondary sources, what shall an article be written from? Use of personal knowledge is likely to be POV and definitely is original research. Received a couple of replies now that such sources exist, but none as to where or what they are. Seraphimblade 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think it would be best to keep the article, it's informative about a game that is fairly popular. If we delete one article about a game, it would only make sense to delete all articles about games that go into detail about game play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.184.117 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 November 2006
• Keep—Better sources can be found. This is a very popular game, with much information of a non-game nature about it. It's just needs a little rewriting. Mazin07 ^(C)/_(T) 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where can these better sources be found? I looked through several pages of Google results but it turned out quite fruitless, if you know of some please point me in that direction. The game may be popular, but verifiability is not a popularity contest-the question is, how much coverage has this thing received from which an article can be written, without resorting to personal knowledge? If there are better sources, this whole thing can be settled easily. Seraphimblade 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling for non-reader reviews of gunbound on major reputable review sites such as Gamespy, Gamespot, PC Gamer magazine etc. for basic description of the game. Most or allof the information on tips and instructions for playing the game that is currently in the article should be removed as a violation of WP:NOT however - so its moot question regarding sourcing for these elements Bwithh 02:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a review index site (with standards for inclusion)with links to several reviews for Gunbound. Bwithh 02:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Gunbound is one of the most popular, if not *the* most popular free online game. It usually has several thousand games going on at any one time. There have been tournaments held as part of a world competition with thousands of dollars in prizes (this can be verified in old news on the official site). As for sources for the article, there is always the handy www.softnyx.net for actual official info, and there are a bunch of sections on MMO sites and GunBound fansites (search for Bunge Holes for a good one). Kargath64 01:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - well-known freeplay game with player count in the hundred thousands. --Czj 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The game is well-known, but there are seemingly no reliable sources or other methods of verifiability outside of the game itself. Garrett^Talk 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on condition of major rewrite Somewhat well-known game with international following that is published by major Korean game company NHN. Certainly there are reliable sources with info about the game (e.g. major commercial review websites). But Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this article needs to be purged of its game guide content which seems to take up more than 90% of the article Bwithh 13:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable subject, shitty article. --- RockMFR 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but needs to be substantially stripped down to remove all the promotional/instruction material. The article should be an encyclopedic discussion of what the game is, and its impact on the world -- not instructions on how to play it. --Elonka 04:52, 19 November 2006 (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.