Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fancade


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Fancade

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Problem of WP:NVG with available information mainly through some promotional-like articles of 2020. After that, there is no coverage, since I couldn't find anything else. Everything is written like a blatant advertisement WP:IBA. Chiserc (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The sources there in terms of secondary information about the game are pretty minimal. But it's got Macworld, Touch Arcade, and Android Central coverage, in addition to the Google Play award, which counts for something. There's not really a parent article that would be a suitable merge target. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Touch Arcade is very "I haven't played all of it yet but it looks cool" which is pretty unconvincing to me especially since they apparently didn't bother to revisit it. Getting a few reviews in RS is usually not a massively high bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. In addition to the sources David found, I also found this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per David Fuchs. It does not look like a whole lot, but there is at least something. jp×g 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep the sources are borderline. But they convince me there is enough WP:POTENTIAL for an article. If more references don't appear, I would support a re-nomination or merge discussion at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (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.