Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toon Blast

Toon Blast

[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)

Doesn't seem like a notable video game. Despite apparently being a big success, it has only gotten trivial mentions in reliable sources, besides the Pocket Gamer article that feels like a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Pocket Gamer is a RS per Project Video Games here, so we have this [1] and [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a RS, with a review [3], any of the sources listed here would be ok [4]. Common Sense media has also reviewed the game [5]. Another RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a bit better. I still won't withdraw the nomination, as it only has 2 reviews. Usually the threshold is a few of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep per Oaktree I believe the sources makes this article barely survive deletion Scooby453w (talk)
There are sources posted on the talk page, WP:CSM and Gamezebo which is WP:VGRS.

That being said... the second line is copied from the Pocket Gamer source with minimal changes, and the Gameplay section is copied without attribution from Fandom. The article needs a complete rewrite. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Blast does not seem like a WP:RS. So yeah, that's 2 reviews from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peak Games, its developer. One of those match-3 games that has heavy prime time/daytime television advertisements obscuring what the object of the game actually is to draw people in (it isn't blasting toons or having fun with them, it's grinding match-3 levels with some bare continuity involving toon characters). Nathannah • 📮 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- not in a developed state, but found these three sources: (https://www.criticalblast.com/articles/2021/07/31/toon-blast-honest-review, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/toon-blast, https://www.gamezebo.com/reviews/toon-blast-review-saving-parents-one-game-at-a-time/) when reviewing it, and I think it's notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Critical Blast does not seem like a reliable website at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense and two Gamezebo articles should be enough for GNG. This isn't Call of Duty, we have critical discussion in two publications, instead of three. I don't think we need to be so hung up on the number of reviews. This is more than we find for other mobile games that pop up here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed here in a French newspaper. [6] and this is listed as a RS at Project Video Games [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided by oaktree have convinced me im not longer having my vote as "weak" keep Scooby453w (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviews by Gamezebo and Common Sense, and the article by PocketGamer are enough for GNG. Additional sources that I found: Softonic review (not necessarily a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) and the game is mentioned several times in this academic book published by Springer Nature: [8] (not necessarily significant coverage). --Mika1h (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peak Games. In my opinion, the coverage provided does not demonstrate standalone notability. Video game news is so niche and scarce that sometimes smaller outlets will cover any game so long as someone pays them. Two outlets reviewed the game, so what? This article's existence is basically a free advertisement for the company, for a game that doesn't have any unique mechanics or gameplay – another run-of-the-mill, free-to-play mobile game ripping off Candy Crush. Yue🌙 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]