Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoboo (computer game)

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egoboo (computer game)

Article has failed to provide verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability of this game (see WP:VG/S). In addition, I do not believe that any of the sources provided are the least reliable in establishing said notability of this game. MuZemike (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is one in-depth review already linked from the article [1]. I have certain doubts about the venue, but it's part of O'Reilly sites, and the author of the review [2] is not a blogger. Free games just don't get reviewed by Gamespot; there are no FOSS publishers to pay for the flashy adds... VG ☎ 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per VG's rationale. O'Reilly is an impeccable RS, and the coverage is clearly non-trivial. Article still needs cleanup, of course. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initially it was to be delete as I was struggling to find another review, but this one already mentioned is by an experienced journalist, and this blog review is posted by a writer who contributes to Game Set Watch (Gamasutra), so that makes two reliable reviews, as well as some interviews for development info. Just needs the relevant pieces citing and the game database entries removing. Someoneanother 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're the same person. MuZemike (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pasted the same link twice, fixed. Someone another 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jclemens and Someone another. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VG's explanation Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sounds good to me. Withdrawn. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (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.