Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairway Solitaire


 * 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. thanks to Odie5533's despamming. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fairway Solitaire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising Codyrank (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is spammy as all get out, but it might be notable enough to keep. I'm finding reviews for it: here is one from a site that looks like an RS based on its about page.  There may be more. But it might be advisable to delete and start from scratch. I don't have a strong opinion either way. —Torchiest talkedits 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I [ copy edited the whole article]. The subject is notable because it has received coverage in reliable sources. SlideToPlay, Pocket Gamer, and I think TouchArcade are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete This was a horrendous piece of advertising and puffery prior to the efforts of Odie (Thank you for your efforts), but I am afraid it still needs to be delted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On what grounds should this article be deleted? The nomination was for advertising, but I believe I have removed all the advertising from the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Odie5533 is quite right. Ordinary editing has already fixed my concerns is not a rationale with any basis in deletion policy.  Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am open to being convinced. I've changed opinions many times before as you all know. I am also human. But I just don't see the notability. Those review sites are not impressive. They are little more than blogs. I don't know that they would even be notable themselves. (Again maybe I'm wrong, it's very possible) I just don't see anything in the regular press or normal media. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From my handy User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PocketGamer has been used as a referenced by EuroGamer 2.
 * SlideToPlay - Some of the founders worked for GameSpot. Has a full editorial policy. Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames.com, 1UP.com, CultOfMac.com, PocketGamer.biz, CasualGaming.biz.
 * TouchArcade.com – Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames, 1UP.com, EuroGamer 2, JoyStiq 2 3 4 5, Technorati, Time, CNET, Kotaku |-aftershock/ 2 3, PocketGamer.biz, International Business Times
 * Also, as it says at the top of my User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability, "This page is for Reliability, not notability. Not all of these sites are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, but some may be reliable enough to be used as sources of information for other Wikipedia articles." --Odie5533 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 148apps.com is also reliable. I added more review links to the article, including CNET, Kotaku, and USA Today. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Ok! That was pretty good. I'm a believer! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 6 December 2012 (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.