Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Breakers

Battle Breakers

Battle Breakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:NGAME, and has WP:LLM concerns. Going through each citation individually in the lens of SIGCOV: citations 8 and 9 don't mention the game; citations 1, 5, 7/16, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are of low quality (ex. citation 5 being on WP:VG/UNREL, 10 being WP:TWITTER, and 15 being WP:PRIMARY); and citations 2, 18, and 19 mention but are not entirely about the game. This leaves only citations 3, 4, 6, and 14 to provide secondary reliable coverage focused on the game. While this meets the bare minimum of SIGCOV, some of these read as WP:ROUTINE news coverage (2 and 14 specifically) which traditionally do not count towards the notability of an article. On top of all of this, sections like "Command and armory" and "Hero roster and store", which include no citations, return as 100% AI generated on ZeroGPT. For these reasons, I propose redirecting this article to its parent company Epic Games. Johnson524 19:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games. Johnson524 19:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Has reviews from reliable sources Multiplayer.it, Gamezebo, and pre-2022 Kotaku, so it passes WP:GNG beyond a doubt. AI detectors are guesswork at best, about as reliable as your local fortune telling shop, so that is inadmissible as an argument, and a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem even if it were AI. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm A most valuable response (thank you for taking the time to find more sources!) and I'll differ from my original assessment and agree that good sources do exist, in line with your comment 🙂 That being said, the vast majority of this article is still 1. cited using aforementioned poor quality sources, 2. not cited at all, and 3. written using AI, that the WP:BURDEN to clean-up the article is enough to warrant a WP:TNT redirect until this objectively-terrible article's issues can be fixed. Johnson524 21:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's true the article needs massive cleanup. But, the idea that it falls under TNT is in my opinion, far fetched. If you think it's a problem, reduce it to a stub. That stub still deserves to be there though, and can clearly be improved into a high-quality article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  While an AI detector is not a valid rationale for claiming AI use, the history seems to agree with the nom's rationale. The page was originally created at User:Chasemobile/sandbox in a single edit, with the first revision even heavier on AI phrases and lighter on sourcing. The user then proceeded to make many refernce additions and other edits below 400B in diff. Sure, it's been lightly edited, but the underlying wording is all the same. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Johnson524, I can see the issues you've raised regarding sourcing and article quality. Looking back at WP:VG/UNREL, I can see that some of the sources I used were not the best choices, even though I originally believed they were acceptable for supporting information about Battle Breakers. I also want to clarify that I did not use AI to write the article. I tried to write in a neutral and professional style in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Writing better articles, though I understand that some sections currently need significant rewriting, better sourcing, and cleanup. Since the nomination, I have found additional reliable coverage discussing the game directly, including sources such as gamesbeat.com and a GDC presentation discussing the game's development. The issue is that most articles covering Battle Breakers only mention the game briefly and do not go very in-depth. What I wrote was based on information I gathered across the sources I linked together alongside ones that I regrettably didn't link. When planning and drafting the article in my notepad and later sandbox, I also used YouTube videos from larger and more trustworthy creators discussing the game to help gain more of a understanding about it, though I understand YouTube itself is most likely not acceptable to use as a citation on Wikipedia. Because of that, rather than linking the YouTube videos directly, I only included website sources that I used alongside them to support the paragraphs I wrote whenever possible. I fully agree the article requires substantial improvement, especially regarding citation quality and uncited sections, however, I believe these are ultimately fixable issues better addressed through cleanup, trimming, and restructuring rather than deleting or redirecting the article entirely. Even reducing the article to a smaller stub temporarily, like what @Zxcvbnm recommended would make more sense to me than removing the article altogether. Chasemobile (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• Draftify; delete second option. The topic is certainly notable, but LLM or not, this article has substantial WP:V problems where time in draftspace would help. Large portions of the article are uncited: Gameplay has ten paragraphs without citations and development has five. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  To add, even the statements that are cited are very questionably so. Battle Breakers was developed by Epic Games and its subsidiary studio Chair Entertainment, the developer previously known for Shadow Complex and the Infinity Blade series is cited to MobyGames, an user-generated source. Chair co-founder and creative director Donald Mustard had previously helped guide Epic's transition into mobile development during the early 2010s is cited to a source that says nothing about a transition into mobile games, just that Infinity Blade was made. Archived footage, screenshots, and development assets from the unreleased title later surfaced publicly in 2023 through video game preservation communities and online archivists is cited to a pseudonymous Twitter account. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  The "pseudonymous twitter account" belongs to a known leaker who is believed to be a former Epic Games employee. The owner of the biggest Fortnite STW archival project, Fortchive had managed to find remnants of Fortnite: World Explorers in the files of Battle Breakers (shown here), which link the two together. I am currently reaching out to @MrTalida and @pox1016, who are responsible for leaking and verifying the information to get more details regarding the leak and the verification process. Chasemobile (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Being a "known leaker" and "believed to be a former Epic Games employee" is extremely far below reliable source standards. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• WP:STUBIFY the significant offending content out and start from scratch. The identified sources make this marginally pass WP:GNG. If nobody is willing to do this, then draftify. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• WP:STUBIFY as per Vrxces. I would be willing to do the stubification if that's the consensus (please ping me). The large unsourced sections, whether LLM or not, are a big problem as they stand. M kuhner (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I missed that the original author is offering to revise. Will support draftify in that case; struck through previous !vote. Apologies. M kuhner (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out: agree drafting is the best outcome here if the author is keen to do so. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. OutsideNormality (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 21:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

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.