Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earn to Die 2

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Earn to Die 2

Earn to Die 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NOTE: Please add 'Keep' or 'Delete' so it would be easier to keep track of Wikipedians' opinions on the deleting of Earn to Die 2. Svetislavs

Non-notable video game. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I, personally, think that Earn to Die 2 is a notable mobile game. It has more than 1 million downloads on Google Play and has on multiple occasions been featured on the popular YouTube channel Annoying Orange. Svetislavs @ 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC+3)

— Note to closing admin: Svetislavs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete We don't have a Earn to Die article, so what makes the sequel notable? And of course, those 'multiple occasions' mentioned on Annoying Orange probably came with promotional consideration for doing so. Nate • (chatter) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Reviews from WP:VG/RS-vetted Gamezebo, TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer, and 148Apps are sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. The other stuff (number of downloads from Google Play and coverage from unreliable YouTube hosts) has no bearing on this discussion—does it or does it not have reliable sources? It does. Three are usually enough to draw the line. @Mrschimpf and I dream of horses, courtesy ping – czar 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough, mentions of the game on a popular YouTube channel don't really mean much either. Azealia911 _talk 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the reviews from the four reliable sources listed above? – czar 02:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Why not? The game is notable enough, and like Svetislavs said, the game has over 1 million downloads on Google Play and has been featured on Annoying Orange multiple times, so I say we should keep it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Userfy instead of deleting because it's a good start but just isn't enough to keep. --☣Anarchyte☣ 10:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Delete (no objection to Userfifaction though) - The "significant coverage in reliable sources" is getting there -- I'm just not seeing enough. Reviews really need to be solid in order to get that free pass re: the "sustained...over a period of time" bit of the GNG. Maybe it's a WP:TOOSOON thing (the game just came out a few weeks ago, it seems). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening following this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - it's got good enough coverage all over the world. [1], [2], [3] That the original edition doesn't have an article isn't relevant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG: there's [4][5][6] and a few more. Esquivalience ^t 23:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage has been found in this discussion which establishes notability per the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (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.