Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal (video game)

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal (video game)

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

No evidence that this app is notable. No non-trival mentions in sources that I could find. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:05, 17 November 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) 00:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Joystiq and Time both have reviews on the game. I'd say it just squeeks through. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 18 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as some notability is established in media. Not sure if/how it will ever get beyond a stub, though. -Rushyo ^Talk 17:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those reviews are capsule reviews, which are considered trivial for films under WP:NOTFILM, any reason why they should prove notability for video games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiscous (talk • contribs) 22:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how either are capsule reviews, especially the Time review, which is 600+ words. --Teancum (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a lacking sufficient in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources meet WP:GNG. I see no problem with the reviews as solid sources. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely if it were notable it would have attracted more than four edits in a year and half, and the article would consist of more than a one-line description? DaveApter (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Notability is not defined by the number of edits made to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 10 December 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, Rcsprinter (state) 18:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Joystiq and TIME reviews seem to concentrate upon an edition of Fractal for iPad, not PC. The article may better meet notability guidelines of rewritten around the iPad edition. Chris (talk) 19:01, 10 December 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.