Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fates Forever

: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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

=[[:Fates Forever]]=

:{{la|Fates Forever}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fates_Forever Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Fates Forever}})

This is a discontinued mobile game that's only claim to nobility is being made by the people behind Discord. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: Notability is not temporary but we have infomation on defunct games while they still have coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 02:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability is not inherited, and reliable sources are lacking in depth. The release or existence of this game did not get acclaim for being "the first MOBA designed exclusively for tablets" either. It looks like this was just another generic app game without lasting impact on the video game culture. WP:GNG, WP:INDEPTH. Ceosad (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep There are at least three review sources in the MetaCritic link that are reliable (Pocket Gamer, Touch Arcade, IGN) that can be used to build out the notability. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. [http://www.metacritic.com/game/ios/fates-forever/critic-reviews Reviews from] IGN, GameZebo, Pocket Gamer, TouchArcade (WP:VG/RS) → sufficient for significant coverage. File:Eye close font awesome.svg czar 06:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Three obligatory reviews from a 3 month period in 2014 and nothing else material. This seems more like linkspam.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

:*Whether or not the sources came within the first few months of release as no bearing on whether or not the subject meets the notability requirements. It doesn't matter when, it just matters that it exists. Furthermore, I have no idea how you find it to be linkspam. People provided third party reliable sources (per consensus from a Wikiproject) that dedicate entire article's to the subject. That's like textbook "How to save an article." on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep - Per the dedicated third party sources provided above, which have consensus for being reliable/usable per WP:VG/S. With them, its meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently it received enough coverage/reviews for a claim of notability. Being reviewed in the first months of release sounds pretty normal to be, I would be surprised otherwise. Cavarrone 09:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.