Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Lil) Green Patch


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Lil) Green Patch

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks notability. According to our own FB page there are over seven thousand applications, this is no the place to list them all. Of the 88k ghits this is the first and on GN there are only  two stories, which does not suggest that widespread third party coverage is going to happen, and it is certainly not there at this moment. Delete without prejudice, if it becomes the number one app then bring it back, at the moment there is little to support this having an article (or being the source of seven thousand more). Darrenhusted (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Referenced as among the top five Facebook applications. Also featured prominently in Times article. __meco (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only 2 google news stories, a passing mention is a fluff piece is not significant coverage. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. meco (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the magazine citations already stack up to a reasonable showing for notability, but there's also a very large review here on Gamezebo which has plenty of material for expansion. Someoneanother 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep very notable, 6.3 million users, $91000+ in funds, covered by numerous reliable sources. Icewedge (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – plenty of reliable independent coverage to establish notability. MuZemike 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep being one of the top applications on Facebook is very notable, IMO.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.