The result was delete. Notability is conferred by multiple, secondary, independent sources - it is not inherited from the fact that it is part of a series per WP:INHERIT, which invalidates about half the points made within this discussion. Those favouring retention have failed to adequately address the concerns of those favouring deletion. Per analysis following the deletion guidelines for administrators, I assess that consensus here is to delete. Fritzpoll ( talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
keep it's notable, encyclopedic, reference and worthy of a page. what are your original problems with it anyway? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) I know quite well all of this. My entire point is that the only independent, cited coverage of the game so far that provides the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" is the IGN source with its speculation; this is the core of what constitutes notability. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) What, is he referring to the IGN speculation? If so, then, yes, he is mistaken, as that one does constitute a secondary source. However, it's nowhere near significant enough alone to establish real-world context and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability is conferred by multiple, secondary, independent sources - it is not inherited from the fact that it is part of a series per WP:INHERIT, which invalidates about half the points made within this discussion. Those favouring retention have failed to adequately address the concerns of those favouring deletion. Per analysis following the deletion guidelines for administrators, I assess that consensus here is to delete. Fritzpoll ( talk) 20:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
keep it's notable, encyclopedic, reference and worthy of a page. what are your original problems with it anyway? IAmTheCoinMan ( talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) I know quite well all of this. My entire point is that the only independent, cited coverage of the game so far that provides the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" is the IGN source with its speculation; this is the core of what constitutes notability. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) What, is he referring to the IGN speculation? If so, then, yes, he is mistaken, as that one does constitute a secondary source. However, it's nowhere near significant enough alone to establish real-world context and therefore notability. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 21:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply