Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FunTown Mahjong

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunTown Mahjong

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article was PRODed in the past, and someone removed the PROD template and added a bunch of sources - that only mention its release for a paragraph or name it and don't talk about it at all. The only reliable sources with depth that I can find (in English) are the IGN review and an Official Xbox Magazine review that I don't know the length of. QuietCicada (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this [1] but that's it. Timur9008 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metacritic lists reviews from IGN, OXM, and X-One Magazine UK, which ought to be enough to pass WP:GNG, though most of the online sources listed in the article are useless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm Not all reviews represent WP:SIGCOV. The magazines like OXM were especially giving smaller casual games (such as FunTown Mahjong) a proportional amount of focus...small blurbs. IGN's review looks good, though it has to be said IGN in that period was reviewing just about everything that was slightly more known out there. I'd love to vote here, but I'm also struggling to pick a side when there's no proof of how far do these magazines reach in terms of coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OXM review is quarter page: https://imgur.com/a/tNXBUxe --Mika1h (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this! And yeah no, this is not even close to be something that counts for WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should have plenty for GNG. In addition to what ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ points to, there's a few more capsule reviews out there including one from the AP, eg [2][3][4], all together this is sufficient to write an article. —siro χ o 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several reviews (they aren't extensive, but we have at least 5-6), so I'd thing we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.