Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free-to-win

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. KTC (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free-to-win

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

Press release masquerading as an encyclopedia article. POV neologism of Free-to-play created as a Wargaming.net marketing exercise. Article mostly sourced to primary sources, any reliably sourced content can easily be integrated into free-to-play. User:Dzimitry, author of the page has exclusively edited Wargaming.net articles. - hahnch e n 00:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - terrible sourcing, none of which count as both third party and reliable. So, it fails the WP:GNG. It's not a real term, just a marketing buzzword. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional fluff full of buzzwords, regurgitated press releases, and unreliable sources. I don't think there's anything worth trying to merge into free to play. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it seems to only pertain to a single game, there's no notability to it as a neologism. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pretty much WP:PROMO of World of Tanks at this point (even if not intended?). Before WP:GNG even becomes relevant, this is just bunch of buzz word passing mentions strung together to sound like a free-to-play variation. Nothing to merge there either as this basically talks about 1 game and none of the sources are about the term/topic. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say there are many more free-to-play games that don't give paid users advantages, such as League of Legends. It really holds little significance, and is not a new genre or business model, just a buzzword. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a small section about this on the Free to play article, should that be removed as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content, if any, to Free-to-play, and then redirect or delete. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What salvageable content do you believe exists for merging? -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence the "if any". I'll leave it to the majority to decide, I don't have an opinion on what should be retained. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a marketing gimmick rather than a concept that has gained significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 6 December 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.