Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet Society

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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Society[edit]

[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)

Not clear what significance this has. It ended many years ago and there are still no reliable sources (WP:RS) on the page to show it's notable (WP:NOTABILITY) or significant. R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could developer analytics be considered a reliable source in this context? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once notable, always notable. The fact that a game has been discontinued does not mean that it is not notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As per RS forbes, quora, Review in GameZebo (See Metacritic), Kotaku and mashable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes link is self published. (Anything on the /sites/ directory is a glorified blog.) I'm not aware of Quora being reliable (self also). Kotaku isn't significant nor is Mashable. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes piece is written by Forbes staff, not a contributor. - hahnch e n 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves it in the glorified blog state. No editorial control is exercised over those websites. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet trivia with no definitive sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closest things to significant coverage here are IGN about people getting married and this brief review in Kotaku. I tend toward delete here. OTOH, it looks like the developer, Playfish, might be notable? --Izno (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a few years, Facebook games were massive. This game was covered in multiple reliable sources mentioned above, also at The Atlantic Gamasutra Adweek - hahnch e n 22:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many RSs, just not in the article yet. Techcrunch article showed they had 20M players, third best Facebook game at the time.[1] StrayBolt (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And WP is filled with articles about things that "ended many years ago". StrayBolt (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage from The Atlantic and Gamasutra is enough to meet WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 11:22, 26 July 2018 (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.