Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheoTown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TheoTown (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)

The page was deleted multiple times for A7 and G11 reasons, so I figure having a full deletion discussion might be worth it. The only sources given are primary: the game's website, and the Steam/App Store/Google Play pages and ratings. The only sources I could find were a self-published blog explicitly including affiliate links, and this review, whose website appears to have an editorial team but for which I'm not sure how reliable it is, as only one of the members is an accredited journalist. Still, assuming this counts as a RS, a single source isn't enough for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a decent sized game with a decent audience. I play the game a lot and the discord server had over 10,000 members. BooCooE (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT λ NegativeMP1 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not speaking positively or negatively on the source's quality or usability, but I feel that a site using affiliate links is noncontroversial, especially since they advertise very clearly that they do. Sites such as Polygon also use affiliate links. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability and reception is low and the inspiration from SimCity 2000, see fan wiki, that I am not sympathetic to keep. Dewiki has some sources that I could see a mention related to city building games. IgelRM (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]