Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play Magnus

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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play Magnus

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia notability requirements. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Plenty of citations confirming notability. The game has the World Chess Champion, Magnus Carlsen's name making it more notable and the app has been downloaded over 1,000,000 times confirming notability. Codename Lisa is a +tag spammer that tried to get the screen shot of the app used in the article deleted, now the editor is trying get the whole article deleted...shame, shame, shame. IQ125 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Definite notability, with claims backed up by the linked sources across a sufficiently significant range of media outlets. The sources given are independent of the subject. Magnus Carlsen is significant in his own right, but the game itself is distinct from his actual personality and shouldn't be merged into a section of his article. The article covers a topic that has consistent and continual coverage, evidenced by the number of downloads it has received. Furthermore, the article does not come across as an advert or sales pitch and gives an informative and succinct summary of its subject. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem available in a variety of reliable and professional sources. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fortuna. Plenty of sourcing appears to exist. There's some minor issues surrounding this article but AFD is not cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) Many available sources out there, simply googling the name of the game on Google News brings up a decent amount. @IQ125: Please assume good faith, Codename Lisa is not out to get you, someone simply adding cleanup tags or cleaning up an article isn't against the rules. Users are encouraged to edit articles while the AfD tag is on it in order to help the article get kept. You are currently engaged in an edit war, please just take a step back and realise that the article is not yours, and that other users are able to edit it too (this is Wikipedia, after all). It's also one of the pettiest things to argue about, Lisa was literally just cleaning up the infobox to standards. If you've got any questions, feel free to hit up my talk page. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per O fortuna. I assume nom is talking about the GNG anyway L3X1 (distant write) 14:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article passes WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically the reliability and significance of sources. TopCipher (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2017 (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.