Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry Dash

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) On the balance, it seems to me that those !voting "keep" have demonstrated notability with respect to NVG and GNG, by finding sufficient reliable secondary coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Dash

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

Fails WP:NVG and WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has significant coverage in the form of dedicated reviews from reliable sources: 148apps, Softpedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry Salvidrim, I'm not feeling you. First, I'm not convinced of the reliability of those two you cite (can't find an editorial policy or an editorial board for 148apps, and Softpedia is too much a download site which makes me doubt their credibility. Either way, two reviews of a piece of software don't, for me, add up to notability. For a 1.99 app I need to see more reliable, more in-depth--in short, much more than what we get here, or almost every app in the world deserves an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your position, I just want to point out that the reliability and worth of 148apps has been established through consensus; as for Softpedia, I re-read the recent discussions and consensus also seemed to be leaning that way. All the discussions are linked to in the checklist at the bottom of WP:VG/S. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The last one listed should easily prove notability, if it's the No#1 app on the App Store. Ana r chyte 05:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That might well change this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does meet the notability guidelines. There are enough sources to prove notability, altrough not currently cited in the article. --TL22 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known game, has a large enough community to be considered notable. - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either or As it stands, I'd say Delete because of the lack of referencing in it, and also per WP:NOTHOWTO. Far too much detail. If it's shown reliably (and I would reject Softpedia there) to be notable, then Keep with a rewrite required (involving pruning). Peridon (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2015 (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.