Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em


 * 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: not a hoax, and has gained sufficient notability for inclusion. No need for this to run its course. GarrettTalk 08:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Likely hoax. No references and it is seemingly a list of misc info. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They made pr0n games for the Atari?!? Seriously, keep because it turns up a fair number of hits, including this and this, so it's clearly not a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - not a hoax. A quick Google search reveals gameplay videos, a mention by Seanbaby, mentions on Atari-specific sites, and so on. It's quite notorious, and has been featured by the Angry Video Game Nerd as well. Very notable game. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because its a notable game. Wonder if they'll ever bring it out on X-Box? ;) John Sloan (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean XXX-box? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous votes. Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Are you kidding? Taking two seconds to do a google search proves your 'hoax' claim immediately wrong. Please don't nominate AFDs any more without at least attempting to do an inklet of research. SashaNein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on guy, it was almost certainly a good-faith nomination. Let's be civil about this. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is asking for someone to do a google search before wasting all of our time with an AFD is uncivil? I will have 'good faith' that he doesn't do this again. SashaNein (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. SashaNein (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Legitimate, verified game. Not sure where the nom got the idea it was a hoax. And in fact the existence of "pr0n" games for consoles like the 2600 was in fact quite a cause celebre in the early 80s. 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep listed on allgame, PC World, and Kotaku; the article is actually linked to by games.net. It's not a hoax. Someoneanother 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed in EGM as The Top Perverted Games. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified game. --Cocomonkilla (talk) (contrib) 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Being a game isn't enough to keep the game by itself, and it could be argued that Custer's Revenge is the only truly 'notable' Mystique title, however the combination of the collectability as well as the rarity of the release of a pornographic game (although more pornographic in thought than in graphics) give this title a unique sense of history that should be preserved. D3l8 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's best to give stuff like this the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia's scope is global, and if you think that the world is a normal place you haven't been getting out enough. Would you believe it if you were told about the Sedlec Ossuary? At the very least, it's courteous to look into the matter and ask other editors. --Kiz o r  07:41, 10 August 2008 (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.