Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4D Cityscape

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4D Cityscape

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

(Contested prod, no reason given and concerns not addressed.) There is no indication why this product is notable and refers to products "not yet released." Cmprince (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I think this is notable as the puzzle go given the gift of the year.

It was also featured in many newspapers and magazines.

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before:

As Willrocks10 said, one reason it is notable is that it was gift of the year in 2010. This is one of the main reasons. I am also sure, 100% positive to be honest, that there is a lot more information on this article. One improvement, for example, is adding the buildings to the city's that have 'More Landmarks' by the side of them. I will set out to do this. I have said it loads before and I will say it again-It is a new (ish) page that has more information to be discovered-or at least written down on this page. Yes, it does refer to not yet released, bu then again, there are products thet have. Please, bare with us. Thanks.

Thanks again, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The product is notable (see this source) but bringing this article up to standard would require a 100% rewrite from the ground up, so deletion might be better anyway. Consider this a Keep if someone else is willing to fix it, and a delete if not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi,

Thanks for the source. I will try to latch on to what you said and improve the page in all areas. I will get to work rewriting the page!

Thanks very much, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by submitter I tried to do a little research on this. So far, the only claim to notability seems to be the "gift of the year" award. Apparently, it is one of sixteen such winners [1] given by a trade group in 2010. It seems like the award is more of an advertisement than an actual competition. Regardless, the notability of the award itself is dubious. This article seems like a genuine effort to contribute to Wikipedia, and I do not have anything against the authors or their interests. I just don't think this particular product meets WP:N. Cmprince (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 1 March 2011 (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.