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. I'm closing early since the outcome's obvious - (Lixxx235 Please be careful when blanking copyvios especially when they're not copyvios at all) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Hardline (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)

Proposing for deletion. I'm sincerely puzzled over what to do here. I just basically blanked the entire article for being a copyvio from several sources, so G12 doesn't really apply, but there can't just be a blank article sitting there. Cheers, --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i wrote a portion of this article so i don't see how its a copyvio, maybe the places you pointed out as a copyvio copied from here? RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable. If it is too empty after cleaning out copyvio, then just write something back in (part of WP:BEFORE). I can and have just written a bit with one of the linked sources, even though I admit being very uninitiated in FPS. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "copyvios" you've removed are obviously copied from here, not the other way around. You can look at the page history and see it develop over time. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the deleted material. The only genuine copyvios appear to be descriptions of two gametypes that were added in this revision. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh I'm OK with my placeholder replaced back with legit content. And a self-written replacement for the removed mode description before I see myself out. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. It's crystal clear that both blogs are copied from Wikipedia in the first place. This one from June has the same layout, but without section headings or refs, while this one from December even uses internal wikilinks! --Soetermans. T / C 15:00, 29 January 2015 (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.