Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icy Tower


 * 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 of the debate was keep. ,, , , , ,. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Icy Tower
Non-notable. Original research. No reliable sources to support importance. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Google throws up an enormous number of hits for this and there's a download link from the magazine PC World's website so I imagine that magazine has covered it at some point. Certainly, Icy Tower seems very well-known and regarded for a freeware release -- Zagrebo 12:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it, what would an encyclopedia be without information about products and computer games also - both downloadable and retail? I disagree with that almost everything small I see is nominated for deletion - if you don't acknowledge the fact that people contribute in a serious way, no wonder there are many who dislike Wikipedia. Just because it isn't very notable it still has a huge fan-community and countless mods and is definitely worth to be kept. It is your narrow-minded point of view on everything that lowers the quality of this great free project. I'm sure the sources can be fixed, just issue the topic a clean-up template. Don't be so impatient. -- Karmus 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons cited above. -- Zagrebo 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; notability is not established. PC world does review many games but not this one (at least not that I could find).  A large % of the google hits seem to be mirror sites (it's freeware) offering download; I couldn't find any independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject. Chondrite 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: IT was mentioned a few times in gaming press and stimulated online merchandising of some kind (see freelunchdesign.com). And it has got a Featured Article on Polish Wikipedia without any hints of unimportance. I'd say Oppose. Agree with Karmus. 83.31.197.8 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  03:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I know so many people who've played this, I don't think that it fails to meet notability criteria (although I admit that I'm not feeling like sifting thousands of Google results to find appropriate sources).-- Hús  ö  nd  04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like sifting either, but don't you think Chondrite makes a good argument that non-trivial reliable external sources likely don't exist? Pan Dan 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He does. But after seeing so many non-notable games for deletion, I just don't think that this is just another one of them. Additionally, it's quite a simple game and I doubt that any good sources could write much about it. Thus, for this one I just prefer to rely on its huge popularity.-- Hús  ö  nd  22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists). We have higher standards at Wikipedia!  Pan Dan 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - "My friends play it" is not a keep criterion. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. Also, can hardly see how does that make a "strong delete".-- Hús  ö  nd  14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable enough. Owoc 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per notability and above points.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, it does have a large following and it is one of the more notable freeware games. Delta Tango • Talk 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Chondrite. If it's popular, it belongs on a game wiki (I assume one exists).  At Wikipedia we need evidence of non-trivial reliable external sources so we can write a verifiable article.  Pan Dan 13:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this - i dont see why to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.228.95.116 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.
 * 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.