Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolly Jam


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Jolly Jam

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

(Previous PROD wasn't noticed due to lack of a tag) This game seems to fail WP:GNG with only 2 instances of SIGCOV, the last one being a 148Apps review, which is generally considered not a decider in terms of notability. All else is a trivial mention/news post/etc. that doesn't count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Article easily covered by Rovio Entertainment Poketama (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ehhh. I would generally argue that 2 full reviews from reliable sources and 1 review from situational 128Apps by a seemingly reliable author is enough for GNG. There are tons of game like this (e.g. Nibblers (video game) or Amazing Alex) with hardly any sources and such that may or may not pass the N bar. But the game is dead, there is no real chance to improve the article or hope for new sources as it's basically one more shovelware mobile "game". So I would say merge on editorial basis rather than strictly due to (lack of) notability. But I'm not sure where this could be merged, but I imagine there could possibly be enough content for a List of games by Rovio Entertainment (instead of Rovio Entertainment perhaps) with a paragraph or two for all these junky titles. But that implies merging/discussing other games too. That said, personally, I just don't care enough about these IAP cashgrab games so I would not undertake this myself and I don't know who would. Therefore my !vote of "I don't care if it gets deleted" since my solution requires a bunch of further work and it won't be an improvement to the encyclopedia unless someone actually does the work. — HELL KNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG with numerous reviews in reliable sources, as well as in situational sources. In addition to the sources already in the article, which are enough to showcase notability by themself due to two of them being from reliable publications, I was able to find this this article in PCMag.com, listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS, as well as this review in Cubed3, which is listed as a situational source. Five reviews, three reliable and two situational, are easily enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources must be both reliable and significant, not one or the other. The PCMag article is not SIGCOV, and situational sources should not be used as the deciding factor with notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The PCMag article is over 250 words long, clearly enough to be considered significant coverage. In any case, the article would be notable even if it were not SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Re-opened by request on talk-page following earlier closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Devonian Wombat. A list of games by Rovio may still be a good idea, though. IanTEB (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep passes WP:GNG 3 reliable reviews are sufficient for a standalone article. W 42  13:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability has been established via the sources discussed above and in the article; the subject has significant coverage in multiple independent third-party sources and therefore meets WP:GNG. (Just a heads up for people looking for additional sources though: Google Books and Newspapers.com were dead ends for me, but I wasn't expecting much from those resources to begin with. The current sources are still sufficient for notability though.) - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (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.