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. Between merge and keep !votes, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Here the consensus is slightly in favor of keeping as opposed to merging but merging can always be discussed anew per Wikipedia:Merging. SoWhy 07:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guns of Boom[edit]

Guns of Boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "Guns of Boom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable video game. Only one review in a reliable source (Pocket Gamer), possibly two if you count 148apps. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are significant coverage ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]). — TheMagnificentist 13:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't call that significant, they are just minor lists of cheats, press releases, etc. It looks like you literally just went into Google and got everything that vaguely had the game's name in it, regardless of whether the source is reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A source isn't unreliable until proven. — TheMagnificentist 20:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is at least a disputed statement according to the discussion at WT:V#Default status of a source. The closing administrator should weight it appropriately. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Game hits 10 milion of downloads in two month. Also this source is reliable [14] and article is not sponsored. Was in the best games of the month [15] and has gold award by PocketGamer [16]Kailiny JP (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned the Pocket Gamer review, the other one from Pocket Gamer isn't significant. The one from Venturebeat could fall under WP:PROMO as it only has 1 sentence of actual opinions ("it reminds me of Team Fortress 2") and the rest is just regurgitating what the game is. The amount of downloads is also not a means of proving notability, popularity is not notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  VentureBeat promo articles are marked as Sponsored. It is their policy and the law, actually. That's why this article couldn't actually fall under WP:PROMO. PocketGamer and VentureBeat are among of the most important press media in the world of mobile technologies and mobile games. And PocketGamer's Gold Award has a big value in this industry. It is non-trivial coverage WP:Notability. - Kailiny JP (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I'll give you that Pocket Gamer and Venture Beat count. But usually the threshold for notability is 3 references with significant coverage. There is 148apps but it has been determined to be of questionable reliability. According to consensus [17] the editorial quality is "gray" and it should not be used to "push a game over the notability edge". So it really needs 1 more significant mention to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, let's check out [18] also represented on Wikipedia [19] and [20] that is also a well-known website about mobile games and tech. -Kailiny JP (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because something is "represented on Wikipedia" doesn't make it reliable, see also: Breitbart, which has an article but is unreliable as a source. Can you prove that the sources you presented are reliable? Because when I looked at Heavy the articles about it said that it was "based on marketing" and "a marketing company" [21]. The article reads like kind of an advertisement without any sort of independent editorial content. That makes it more likely that it's a paid advertisement of some kind, which would fall under WP:PROMO.

  All of the online media are marketing companies. Also, let's take a look at this one [22]. By the way, it can be non-trivial coverage cause it covers important technology in terms of mobile developement.-- Kailiny JP (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's patently false. Game journalists may use ads to support them, but New York Times does too, and they aren't a "marketing" company. Using ads on your site does not equate with being totally based around marketing things. That source you mentioned, might be reliable but it's certainly not significant, and probably falls under WP:PROMO due to the fact that it's predominantly a copy-paste of a press-release._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if interview can be significant or reliable then. But let's check this new out [23] -- Kailiny JP (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, that new source definitely changes things. I think there's more of an argument towards notability now, when there was very little at the time of the AFD. I'm not going to go so far as to withdraw the AFD, since the other current sources are still lackluster. But, I would ask that the admin looking at this keep the article if nobody else contributes to this discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Appolicious falls under that too, because they have a massive "pay us to submit your app for review" button on top of the page. That means that any sort of review may be biased and unreliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Game Insight as barely scraping WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth (reviews and impact) sources from WP:VG/RS: Pocket Gamer, Venture Beat. Pocket Gamer and Venture Beat have good content, but neither is in-depth and are basically news items. Multiplayer IT looks good (Editorial team), if we consider it reliable. 148Apps reliability is disputed, but it can add content, though not push the article over GNG. There's not enough content to have a full article. For other sources: Droid Gamers is not reliable. Mobile World, Christian Post, Heavy, Android Community are basically PR blurbs/feature lists. App2top, GameHub has no real content. Appolicious, Android Authority and MakeMac come closest to acceptable content, but are not vetted reliable sources and none show the signs of reliable sites -- editorial team, author credentials, established publisher, etc. In the end, the couple good and unvetted sources can be used for a few sentences in the company's article as a more "notable" example of their games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiplayer.it has been explicitly rejected or at least no-conned as a source at WT:VG/S. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see it in the main list (I added it now). It doesn't look like it has been outright excluded though. I guess we can have another look at some point, since they have an editorial team and a publisher, which are two strong reliability indicators. I might post it later for review. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above sources. Not everything with ads is marketing. That's ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That is extremely vague. Would you clarify why it's "ridiculous" for this particular article and what of the "above sources" you find significant for inclusion. Because there's still only one article that can truly be said to be significant/reliable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to concur with Zxcvbnm. The number of sources listed is basically WP:BOMBARD without explaining how they are individually reliable, independent, and in-depth. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per provided sources and significant coverage. [24] - Kailiny JP (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Kailiny JP (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Kailiny JP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge per Hellknowz. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - download and revenue stats suggest this is an above average successful game. I just added different Venturebeat coverage. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:21, 23 August 2017 (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.