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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ynot? 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable game, article needs cleanup, but a wiki-worthy topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)
Comment No, the mentions are both trivial. They both consist of a short paragraph about the game and where you can get it. No review or anything like that. Whispering 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralWeak keepI was about to say weak delete after googling for like an hour (hm, sifting through 600 unique results) - so one thing we know for sure is that every single gaming site out there seems to have a trivial mention of it :P But then, one other thing which turned up before i stopped, on page 3 of the results or so, was [1] - it seems to be a really old review, likely from the beginnings of the internet, and it's not accessible from its main site (which i'm not sure would be notable, so no good using as reference anyway). But a user comment says "we even had an article in the 98 december issue of GamePro" - if someone can confirm that there's this article, I'd change to "week keep", also seeing how it still is being developed and might gain some notability as open source game, and how it has its old age and still players, and the fact how it changed from closed commercial to open source. --Allefant 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single reliable, independent reference, per WP:V. To elaborate: forums and wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. MarašmusïneTalk 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable soruces, unverifiable, rudimentary listings on IGN and Gamespot not enough unless actual commmentary has been made on the games by the sites (IE features or reviews). DarkSaber2k 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (note: new information) the game is listed on IGN and GameSpy, and has been professionally reviewed archive_link. The review does not look as shiny as the normal GameSpot links because the archive strips some content. --User:Krator (tc) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IGN and GameSpot just show directory entries; no articles, news or reviews. The Ogaming review; can we confirm that AhmedF is/was a staff member and not a user-contributed review? MarašmusïneTalk 07:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With some googling [2] I guess we can be pretty sure he was the one who owned ogaming.com at the time that review was up there. --Allefant 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is ogaming.com good enough though? But at least over archive.org the link can be used as reference, other than the deep-link I had found, and if we assume there really is the offline GamePro article, then I think there's no more reason to delete it, so I changed my vote above - better to err on the keep side. --Allefant 11:56, 16 July 2007 (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.