Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retro Bowl

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 snow keep. Consensus based on discussion aligns with a BEFORE done prior to closing and demonstrates that this undoubtedly is a notable video game based on sustained, in depth coverage. This has been up just short of 7 days with no delete !votes thus I feel a snow keep is within reason. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Bowl

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable game, and perhaps a bit too soon to make an article; I would like to see rationale and opinions from other editors on why or why not delete. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep we have articles about games, and this particular game seems to have drummed up a lot of press coverage--more than enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: A google search found some coverage like this but I'm unable to view it, so I don't know reliable it really is. However, the existing coverage should be enough to just barely pass GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 14:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about reliable sources for video games, but references 1, 2, and 4 in this revision look good enough to me for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing available appears to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets minimum WP:GNG criteria. Mann Mann (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2021 (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.