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

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISketch

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

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.