Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Pics 1 Word

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. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 Pics 1 Word

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

Non-notable app/game. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a press release than an article. I was not able to find adequate references which would satisfy the subject's inclusion per the notability criteria for software. WilliamH (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Whether the article may or may not need rewriting is irrelevant, fact is, this is a notable app. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - there's enough reliable sources within there for this to be notable. WP:BEFORE not followed properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had strictly followed deletion policy, I would have speedied it as spam myself (luckily A7 doesn't apply to non-web software too). I've been criticized in the past for taking that approach for not at least giving others with knowledge the chance to redo it from scratch, which is what it needs--it is hopeless in its current form. DMacks (talk) 15:41, 21 March 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) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've nuked the promotional bullshit. Now we can have a valid article. Really wasn't hard... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination, Lukeno94 did an excellent job of rewriting the article almost from scratch. All the earlier promotional material is now gone and what's left is a good start-class article with reviews in reliable sources such as PC Advisor, WhatMobile, and Inside Social Games. The game seems to pass notability guidelines per WP:GNG and spam is not longer an issue, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Lukeno's source hunting and rewrite. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lukeno managed to salvage the article, and the nom no longer applies. Ducknish (talk) 17:31, 23 March 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.