Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiquidSky

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiquidSky

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

Company/service launched this year, referenced entirely to the company website and its press releases/videos. Proposed deletion removed by creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received coverage in reliable sources such as PC Gamer and Engadget, among others. Some hits I could find appear to be press releases, but there does appear to be enough independent coverage to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I added two review references. One from online Time Magazine and the other from PCWorld. The way it's written about and the multitude of other 'not as prominent' sources leads me just on the side of notable
Keep - Time magazine is a pretty high level source. I can't imagine the nominator would have made this nomination had they been aware of this sort of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep. This feels like an article about an announcement of the service, in other words, WP:NEVENT and fails WP:LASTING. It's all rehashed PR blurbs and quotes, basically a whole lot of WP:PRIMARY. But the number of references from reputable sources, such as WP:VG/RS and broader, is numerous. It feels WP:TOOSOON, but I'm sure more sources actually dealing with the product itself will appear once it's released and reviewed. If it's a flop and no one ever comments on it again, I would revisit the AfD and argue for deletion due to failing WP:LASTING. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:07, 27 March 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.