Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatty Bear

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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty Bear

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

I could not find significant coverage of this game in any reliable sources. Article was copied almost entirely from Wikia here. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit I found one review at allgame, and the mobygames entry claims there is another review in EGM. The EW "review" is incredibly short and not a full review. The game still does not appear notable. EDIT 2 The EGM review is three short sentences. I figured it would be shorter, but I'm actually surprised at how short it was. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Compute! published a lengthier review (republished here with the copyright holder's permission). It seems to me that the situation with this game is similar to that of the previously discussed Cavern Creatures. In that case, the community determined that the existence of two magazine published reviews was sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG even though one of those reviews was only a single paragraph in length, about the same size as the Fatty Bear EGM review. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the Computer! review. The GNG is met here by the letter, but this might be setting too low a bar for inclusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humongous (game developer). Even with reviews, I don't think there's anything unique enough about this game to warrant a separate article. 1292simon (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a series page to merge to, but I'm slightly concerned about the lack of sources on that entry as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Mike. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (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.