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 redirect to En Masse Entertainment#Fruit Attacks. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable mobile video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The three references in the article are PR, announcement and source reusing the previous source. The announcement source does not appear to be reliable. There is no other in-depth content from reliable sources, such as reviews, that I can find. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to dev article: En Masse Entertainment. Analysis above is good, but dev article exists. Redirect as useful search term. czar 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Page should be redirected as noted above. Meatsgains (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to En Masse Entertainment#Fruit Attacks. Anarchyte 05:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as this is unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added more information to the Fruit Attacks page, including references to two independent reviews of the game, and information about the most recent update to the game, which happened in October 2015. I am hopeful that this adds enough relevance to the game to merit its inclusion in Wikipedia. Baraqorn (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sources don't look too bad to me, though I'm not hopeful we will vet them reliable at WT:VG/RS. Android Rundown appears to be by guys from 148Apps, which is reliable, but their site is devoid of editorial information. Android Central (click "view all" for authors) looks better in that regard, but the authors themselves do not appear to have journalism credentials. Unfortunately, neither of the reviews' authors appear to have credentials to make their reviews pass on their own. (Hope you don't mind I moved your comment lower to match the timing of replies.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give benefit of my doubt to Android Central, but Android Rundown has no hallmarks of editorial quality. We know nothing about its staff or its processes. (I have some issues with 148apps as well.) In any event, the section should be sufficiently expanded before we ever need to spin it out. czar 04:31, 23 January 2016 (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.