- 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pou (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I definitely don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Most of the sources used are completely unreliable just from a single glance, and I can't find anything reliable covering it apart from a review by Engadget. Jurta talk/he/they 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Depend, Despite of being a popular mobile game, the article has a lack of reliable sources, but I found some sources such as [1] and [2] NatwonTSG2 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'd in 2014, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Mobile game with more than 500 million downloads [1]. [2]. The article needs improvements, but passes on WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Though searches such as "Pou video game" do not yield many results, I have found enough reputable sources, including large newspapers, reporting on the game and its revitalization of the "Tamagotchi clone genre" by looking up "Pou app" to pass WP:GNG. [3][4][5][6][7]. User:RayanWP — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:GNG. As a Brazilian, I confirm TecMundo, TechTudo and TudoCelular are reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing the sources required to pass WP:GNG. Engadget "review" has a lot of words and sentences but is more of an angry rant that touches upon most trivial things that unsettled the "reviewer" and says nothing about the game besides like 2-3 sentences at most. The fact it has 500 million downloads is utterly meaningless in terms of Wikipedia notability. Wamda's source is good on paper but "Wamda accelerates entrepreneurship ecosystems across the Middle East and North Africa region through its sector-agnostic investment vehicle, Wamda Capital, which invests in high-growth technology and tech-enabled startups", so it's not an independent source. Tecmundo's source in the article is literally a guide of how to install Pou on an emulator! And Tudocelular is a short mention of the download milestone (+ a press release feature copy at the end). My searches haven't brought anything besides directories, press releases, game guides or listings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately a mix of professed popularity and amassing a large assortment of trivial coverage isn't enough, as paradoxical and frustrating as that may be. Let's put the Engadget aside as I recognise that's significant coverage from a reliable source. What else? There's not much of a focus on the content of the sources that are claimed to assert notability. The coverage is seldom significant and has little to evaluate or review. The best three sources that seem to be relable surely should be of a better calibre of Mindelheimer Zeitung article, whose evaluation extends as far as calling it "downright addictive", Focus, that says little other than "users can dress their Pou individually with hats, glasses and wigs", or Berliner Morgenpost, that says nothing about the game other than that it is "funny"? The significant coverage that does exist is dubious: the fawning Wamda article is written by the former editor of a oblique private sector 'thought leader' website whose stated purpose is clearly to elevate entrepreneurship like that of the game's creator, and it is genuinely difficult to gauge any editorial process here given they openly invite pitches and contributions. The other mix of blogs and press release coverage neither has significant coverage or reliability. You can definitely amass a very loose description about the game from all of these sources, but you can't reliably tell from all of these sources how the game was made as nobody reliably discussed it, and you can't reliably say how it was received because there's no reviews. So it fails general notability on the sources available. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 March 2024 (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.