Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Pool

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. Sandstein 09:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Pool

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

I have found nothing to indicate this is a notable game beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~: It's also known as 3D Ultra Cool Pool. That turns up more in searches [1]. However, being a 1999 game in a niche genre, odds are that in-depth coverage would be in print videogame and computers magazines of the era; most of the websites that would have written about this are long gone, Internet Archive wasn't very comprehensive back then (and especially, unfortunately respectful of robots.txt exclusions and similar metadata, which was really unfortunately overused in ignorance in that era (people thought it was protecting them from bad bots somehow, not yet realizing it was preventing people finding them via search engines and stuff). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Indeed as @SMcCandlish: states, the second title is more popular. There are reviews of the game in Computer Games Magazine & PC Gaming World, as well as a mention in a GameSpot article. The game can also be referenced against reviews in Electric Playground Magazine (04/16/04) where it was rated 7/10 and Computer Games Mag (12/08/99) where it recieved 2.5/5, acording to Gamerankings. Those magazine reviews should be enough to justify notoriety Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per review sources already found by Lee Vilenski, before even getting into paper ones. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 18:58, 7 January 2018 (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.