Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Day


 * 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. Closing as keep with no prejudice towards continued talk page discussion about the possibility of merging to Supercell (video game company). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hay Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have looked for independent sources to establish notability and have not been able to find them. The article was previously redirected to the company that produces it, but has been restored without any reliable independent sources. GB fan 00:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Supercell Supercell (video game company). The game deserves a mention but that doesn't mean it is notable enough to get its own Wikipedia page. Vectro (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt this is spam flavoured spam served with a side-serving of spam, with spam pudding to follow and with a spam-juice drink. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of campaigning to undo any deletions.  Of course, this is just the tip of the spam-iceberg, as far as paid editing goes.  There is a big problem with unnotable companies and unnotable apps/games, etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The company that produces this game (article actually at Supercell (video game company) if this closes for merge) is very clearly notable, but I think there may be enough independent coverage to support articles for their two flagship products as well.  A cursory search finds a Gamezebo review and some coverage of its success in Japan, along with nontrivial mentions in mainstream media articles about Supercell (such as this Forbes article).  In general, there is a problem with small companies attempting to use Wikipedia as push advertising for non-notable products, but I just don't think that's the case here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article just barely passes GNG (having two reviews), but more importantly, its business model has made it the #3 top grossing mobile game in the U.S. 1. Additionally, some sites, particularly Gamasutra, discuss the game's business model and gameplay casually as though readers ought to be familiar with the game. I think we'd do a disservice to our readers if we didn't have page for the game since it's such a huge hit and is thus a subject of discussion. There are two full reviews: GameZebo PocketGamer. Other coverage: CNET, Gamasutra 2 3 4. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Supercell. As it stands, this article doesn't have enough unbiased references. We can always split it out from Supercell later if it suddenly becomes the next Angry Birds. RomanSpa (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisting admin's note to !voters: Please make it clear, if you are voting for redirect or merge to the company, that the target is Supercell (video game company). Supercell being something else entirely... - The Bushranger One ping only 08:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Inspection of my earlier comment will reveal that I've already done that, but thanks for your note anyway. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Vectro (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as this source notes, the game is very popular and profitable, 4th highest grossing app of 2013. There's substantial coverage of it and along with Cash of Clans it launched the parent company to a $2 billion or so valuation. A merge has certain disadvantages as the game would no longer be in the right categories. I also think it would unbalance the parent article, because to cover it properly would overweight that article to having a lot of coverage of this game when Clash of Clans is actually an even bigger success (and does have an article). It was the 3rd highest grossing app of 2013 if anyone is wondering.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep A news article in International Business Times with a readership between 5-7 million, and read in 7 continents; I think it passes WP:GNG. I don't think a merge would be good for it either, as it negates the important fact that Supercell is making £30 Million/month for this game and Class of Clans from in-game purchases, and offers up the fact that a very large number of mobile gamers must have seen/played it, to make it to position 3/4 on the charts. Keep and expand. Easily passes WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 21:59  19 April 2014 (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.