Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda Drinker Pro

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. L Faraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Drinker Pro[edit]

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

Utterly trivial. The only acceptable ref. is the Boston Herald, & I don't think it's enough for something so very close to nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not nonsense, but it isn't notable either. Just another of the seemingly infinite number of freeware games out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can only see part of the Boston Herald coverage (paywall), but assuming it is reasonably in depth, this easily meets the coverage requirements of WP:N. Boston Herald and Game Informer are both high-quality sources. Dig is a fine reliable source (it's an alt-weekly that has some odd bits of coverage, but still fine). Mashable's coverage also seems fine (written by their video-game reporter). I really don't see what the problem is. A "trivial" game, but one that grabbed serious attention. Hobit (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I accepted this article at AFC. I deliberated heavily on the notability and edited the content before deciding to approve it. I'm in line with Hobit's thinking. The gameplay itself is admittedly trivial, but that's part of the reason it has garnered so much notability. Rinkle gorge (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are not referenced in the article, but I see coverage of this game in Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Game Informer, among other RSes. This seems to meet WP:GNG to me. -Thibbs (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (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.