Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bailout! The 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bailout! The Game

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable game, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Only sources found are trivial or press releases. TN X Man 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually seems like a fun game, but there's also COI as the author is the creator. Reywas92 Talk 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep My local TV station just covered a family in my area playing this game; I don't think that would be non-notable. It just needs a rewrite. Killer Magikarp (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and keep. The article's a mess, but the subject matter meets WP:N. THF (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep bad game, but has coverage enough to meet WP:N. Added a review (which adds little to the notability but adds a bit of balance). Hobit (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up some of the blatant promotional language. Still needs help, but I think the COI issues have been largely dealt with.  A lot of formatting help is still needed.  Also note this has apparently seen coverage on MSNBC since deletion was first proposed (I didn't wait through the ads to watch the video link in the article).  Hobit (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep But only if coi editor stops filling it with unencyclopedic promotion... the article is a mess as it stands.  Teapot  george Talk  23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've found sufficient quality refs to show that it easily passes WP:GNG, and I've updated the article accordingly. Now, if only the article creator would leave it alone… Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an editing restriction based on COI might well be needed here. Hobit (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It got news coverage.  D r e a m Focus  11:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.