Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISketch (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss iSketch in-depth. I see brief mentions, and that's it. The one reference in the article doesn't mention iSketch, at all. -- Mike 🗩 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to have been a number of sites mentioned in the first AfD from 15+ years ago. All of them I checked seem to be dead. Anyone able to go Internet Archive diving for them? Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above a number of sites in the previous AFD demonstrated notability, for example CNN Review: The all-star team of online games, PC World: An Online Doodle Dandy, AskMen.com The Best & Coolest Sites Around, also it might be worth searching the PC Magazine archives on archive.org, for example PC Zone WEBGAME of the month Piecesofuk (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also saw some of these. For me, they mostly fail WP:SIGCOV. The CNN reference and the PC World reference is only one paragraph. AskMen is two sentences. PC Zone would qualify, I think, but that is still only one reference with significant coverage. -- Mike 🗩 20:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see much difference between the CNN and PC Zone sources: here's the CNN source as published in PC World (January 2002) https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bd9a9c53-25f7-408f-aedc-9f4ace0d54e5%40redis Here's a couple more mini reviews from the Evening Herald (Dublin) - Wednesday 18 April 2001 and the Irish Independent - Monday 11 September 2000 Piecesofuk (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked through the references and I think there's enough information about the game to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion using said sources. I think when determining WP:SIGCOV we should always consider if the amount of information extracted from all the sources involving the subject would be enough to write a decently sized article about it, as opposed to a permastub. Given these sources, I believe it meets GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm not in love with the quality of sourcing, but it's not disqualifying. Also, this source [1]. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There aren't a *lot* of surviving sources, but they're clearly reliable and have sufficient context. Jordan117 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]