Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocket Platoons


 * 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 redirect to En Masse Entertainment. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pocket Platoons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video game failing to pass WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Of the two sources in the article, one is by the developer, the other is an announcement in a non-reliable source. Cannot locate any in-depth sources besides catalogue entries and announcements (single reliable non-trivial announcement ), in other words, no in-depth material such as reviews. Does not appear like we could write an article with the current materials available. Metacritic is absent even of unreliable reviews. (The developer does not have an article, where the game's entry could be merged otherwise and it is listed in publisher's article.) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Added more information to the Pocket Platoons page, citing two independent reviews of the game. Baraqorn (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy redirect to dev article: En Masse Entertainment. Analysis above is good, but dev article exists. Redirect as useful search term. czar  18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to En Masse Entertainment.  Ana  r  chyte   05:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Week keep per these reviews. Otherwise, redirect or merge. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 05:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These sources are unreliable by every measure. I wouldn't even call the second source a review. czar  05:42, 19 January 2016 (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.