Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TwinGo!

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. Considering the lack of discussion, I think a non-consensus close is unavoidable. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TwinGo!

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

No indication of lasting notability. No reliable sources either .I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Keep both. So while many people are not happy about the page creator's rapid stubbing using only a sentence from Metacritic, when brought to AfD (and ideally before AfD), a WP:VG/RS search shows that the article has sufficient sourcing. The reviews from Gamezebo, 148apps, and Pocket Gamer are all vetted RS and provide sufficient material for making gameplay and reception sections. This said, I'd also entertain a redirect to its developer, Chillingo, since the one-sentence stub isn't doing anyone any favors and anyone is welcome to expand a stub summary style as much as one is welcome to expand a redirect. As for Mad Acorn, which isn't similar to this game and likely shouldn't have been bundled, reviews from the same sources are available (see its Metacritic page). Its developer does not have a page, so it doesn't have the option of being redirected. czar ♔ 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 17:04, 26 October 2014 (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.