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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Taxi (iPhone Application)[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is notable enough to merit an article. There isn't really policy for the notability of games (There is a draft for one), so I thought I'd ask here. Tim 1357 ^talk 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to Keep. The article has no major issues and appears to be well formatted and written. I understand the concerns regarding notability, but unless we have hard and fast guidelines it's diffcult to say just how notable the subject needs to be. Since the artcle has no major problems, I would rather keep than delete in this case. Wexcan Talk 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We do have a hard and fast guideline concerning notability: the GNG. Are there multiple, reliable sources discussing this subject in significant, non-trivial detail? Plenty of blog posts, of course, but news articles? Just not there. Ravenswing 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I found [1], which provides some significant coverage and looks like passes for reliability, but that's it. Would need 1 or 2 more independent sources before I am comfortable keeping it. –MuZemike 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to "vote" delete before checking out the article. But the game on iPhone seems to be distinct from other versions and there is at least some kind of sourcing. WP could have stricter standards about not being a consumers' guide, or else the standards could be better understood and followed. However this article is of fairly good quality and the info is useful to people interested in the topic. Wolfview (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there's no coverage from reliable/notable third party sources. The coverage which it has received appear to be from mediocre sources. Not sure what the notability guidelines are here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable 3rd-party coverage. Existence of article is essentially for promotional purposes. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (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.