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 delete. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The One Ring Game[edit]

The One Ring Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Seems to be a non-notable web game. Google search turns up no reliable sources to prove the subject's notability or verifiability. — The Earwig @ 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a facebook app with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• added a review to the page - showing coverage in a reliable source, also google search for the one ring game now shows it here [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.176.170 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) — 195.137.176.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• That Google result is no more than a press release, which isn't significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Google now shows the game in 8 out of the first 10 entries for the search 'The One Ring Game'. 3 December 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvandil (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) — Kelvandil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • But are any of them significant coverage in reliable sources? One of them (for me) is actually the wikipedia article! -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found no significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2009 (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.