Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C-evo

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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, and no "delete" recommendations. See WP:SK — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-evo

Tagged on and off with notability/verification concerns since May 2008. I don't think this passes the notability guidelines (WP:N). One review at VictoryGames, but that site seems a mess and I'm not conviced that it qualifies as a WP:RS. Web search shows plenty of user-generated content at various directory sites but I can't see anything that solidly hits WP:V. If one good item of coverage turns up, I can support a merge with Civilization II, per WP:N footnote 4. Marasmusine (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found a few reliable third-party sources with enough information to write a non-stub article. I've done a rudimentary job of adding them, but someone should go ahead and expand on them based on the verifiable facts that are in these different sources. Randomran (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Eurogamer mention, if a little short. What is the extent of the coverage in Civilizations: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases? Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randomran. Good job on expanding and cleaning up. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added by Randomran establish notability. LK (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I withdraw my nomination. People seem happy with the amount of coverage now presented. Marasmusine (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (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.