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. Consensus is that the two sources satisfy policy; more sources also added by Airborne84. (non-admin closure) -- Puddleglum ^2.0_{( How's my driving?)} 00:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

LandLords (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability; nothing beyond the single review already listed in the article could be found in the 8(!) Google hits [1]. Article was despite its short length originally a copyvio of that one review, but has now been very slightly paraphrased after these problems were pointed out to the creator. No obvious redirect target as the company has no article. Fram ( talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I would have said delete when I first came across it. But I went through some old out-of-print magazines I have and found a review in a 1985 issue of Paper Mayhem magazine (now added). Believe that two independent reviews/articles of this type in different publications meets Wikipedia's standard for notability. Also, given that my collection of old, out-of-print magazines of the era is far from comprehensive, since two reviews have surfaced, I see no reason why there wouldn't be more out there, so I'm comfortable pointing to WP:NEXIST at this point as well. Airborne84 ( talk) 02:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the two reviews satisfy GNG. WP:NGAME seems to be specific to video games rather than all games, but it seems to be a GNG rephrase anyway. Two reviews is also enough to satisfy a specific WP:NBOOK criteria, and though i know this is not a book, I just point out the precedent for any people that demand WP:THREE in their GNG interpretation. - 2pou ( talk) 17:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to insufficient RS to establish GNG. The source of the two reviews are not in the spirit of WP:NBOOK. Chetsford ( talk) 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - GNG is satisfied by the reviews found. Chetsford's view of the "spirit of NBOOK" has not been supported either by policy or by previous AfD outcomes. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (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.