Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Geographic Animal 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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  23:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic Animal Jam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just another free-to-play game. Article reads as a game guide, uses primary sources and fansites as sources. Does not deserve an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure about this one. There is significant coverage here (site ranked by Alexa as #752/1,873 overall in US/Global web rankings). and a lot of other non-trivial coverage out there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made this page much less like a game guide and much more like a wiki I removed the list of animals and other things game guide. lawiki1534 (talk) It's mostly the ips making it a game guide. lawiki 1534
 * Comment I don't think it's enough for its own article but I did find a couple of sources:, . Sam Walton (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. So it doesn't make me proud, but I think this article passes the GNG between the following WP:VG/RS sources in order of strength:
 * http://www.gamezebo.com/2013/01/03/animal-jam-review/
 * http://kotaku.com/5603235/national-geographic-brings-out-the-animal-in-you
 * http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/16/national-geographic-virtual-world-animal-jam-hits-a-million-kids/
 * http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20609141_20616958,00.html
 * Yes, it would be stubby, and I'd be a proponent of a merge into a National Geographic games article (to share with stubs like Kinect Nat Geo TV, but until then, it passes the GNG enough to stick around. czar ♔   03:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Five reliably sourced references pushes it across the notability threshold for a stub IMHO. 's suggested future merge to National Geographic games is a good one.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it's a free-to-play game doesn't exactly constitute deletion, Also, There aren't too many more reliable third party sources because no-one really has an official list or anything except fansites and sources from the creators, but fansites are still third party technically, The article is still pretty reliable and i personally don't think it should be deleted. --69.166.78.85 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The fan sites are definitively not reliable sources. A list of approved video game sources is available at WP:VG/RS. As for the article's current state, it's unsourced and in need of gutting. That doesn't change that the topic has coverage (mentioned above) that could replace its currently unacceptable state. czar ♔   05:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, It does need significant cleanup, But there aren't really to many sources except game guides, fansites, or Official sources for many things, So, It's gonna be a very "large" cleanup for the article, That is, If a cleanup starts, Anyways, That's what i think. --69.166.78.85 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 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.