- 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. Some debate about whether WP:G11 applies or not, but unanimous agreement to delete via non-CSD means. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Typing Game[edit]
- The Typing Game (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)
In my opinion, the article's only reliable source that establishes notability is SmallBizTrends, and even this is of dubious reliability; the other pages are primary sources (e.g. Google Play) or not professional websites (e.g. Bored Panda). For this reason, I declined the submission at AfC two days ago, but the creator—well within their right—moved this into the mainspace with no further edits.
Pinging Firefly and Heliosxeros, who also reviewed the draft at AfC (when it had the same sources it currently has). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 10:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many AfC submissions that by-passes the submission process and jumps to mainspace. This article in particular, not only that it doesn't have reliable sources, it doesn't give in-depth in terms of notability. Hence, delete. EROS message 12:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - my opinion hasn't changed since I reviewed and declined the draft (which hasn't changed since I did so). No significant, independent coverage, does not meet the GNG or any subject-specific guidelines. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 11:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I notice that the article creator blanked this AFD page then moved it to User:Articles for deletion/The Typing Game, but got spotted. Narky Blert (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:G11. I mean, it's "good to play"? an "ideal app"? One of the sources, Bored Panda, appears to be a blog post by the creator, and most of the other sources are along similar lines. The SmallBizTrends article is the only source that looks independent. Even if the app becomes notable, there is a strong case for WP:TNT.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this. Two or three sentences of the article are promotional out of three paragraphs. That's not the "exclusively promotional" requirement for G11. I've removed the tag. No doubt the article will be deleted but due process is important. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough. I think we disagree on what exclusively promotional means – for me, the entire article would not look out of place on an ad for the software, and all of the citations, save one, are fundamentally promotional, there is sufficient reason to apply WP:IAR. Since there is a product description which might be considered encyclopedic, I agree that there's room for interpretation – though I think the last paragraph is definitely promotional, being essentially download links, and the last sentence of the product description still might be. It looks like it'll be a moot point though, since this AfD will be closing soon anyway.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR almost never applies to the deliberately strict CSD criteria; that's why PROD and AfD exist. I think this is important to bear in mind in any future tagging you do: PROD and AfD are the options for pages which do not unambiguously meet a CSD criterion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that CSD criteria are not to be ignored, rather my interpretation is that the whole speedy delete thing is already IAR and SNOW. Yeah, I agree that if there's an objection then it's no longer speedy-able. It's probably better to have the discussion sometimes anyway.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 4 August 2018 (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.