Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Injured Engine


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Injured Engine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and isn't listed at MobyGames (our best index of offline game reviews). czar 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. The three reviews are sufficient for the general notability guideline when added to the potential book sections. Nice sleuthing czar  02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches found nothing better and this current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are too many relevant-looking hits at Google Books for me to feel comfortable in saying that it should be deleted.  Here's a sampling: Computer simulations: a source book to learning in an electronic environment (Garland Publishing), which looks like it may have an entire chapter on the game; this article from InCider magazine, which looks like it has a review; Educational Computing: A Guide to Practical Applications (Gorsuch Scarisbrick), which looks to discuss it, albeit on a single page; this article in Kiplinger's Personal Finance of all things; and this article in InfoWorld.  Gorsuch Scarisbrick seems to be part of Pearson Education.  These aren't great results, but they did give me hope.  I searched archive.org, and I found even more reviews.  I'm not entirely sure I can link to them, because they seem like they might be copyright violations.
 * Home Computer Magazine Volume 5, Issue 4. Reviewed by Rhea J. Grundy on page 39.
 * Commodore Microcomputers Issue 37. Reviewed by Mark Cotone on page 14.
 * Electronic Games Volume 3, Issue 4. Reviewed by Joyce Worley on page 49.
 * I started adding these reviews to the article, but then my browser crashed. sigh.  I'll try to do it again.  Anyway, that's at least three full-length reviews, plus the other coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the reviews. I think the article shows significantly more notability now.   it's got a few sources now; care to look at it again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , can you please add the links to the archive.org sources? I think we need more info than the sparse Google Books previews on the first few links to pass judgment, but the reviews would sound good if they are indeed full reviews. Thanks for your help czar  13:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I don't know how to link to specific pages.
 * Home Computer Magazine (tezt)
 * Commodore Microcomputers (text)
 * Electronic Games (text)
 * You can click on the text version or view them in a variety of formats. There were a few other hits on archive.org, but they looked like they were likely advertisements, so I didn't bother to read them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here:  czar  02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nice job finding those sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2016 (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.