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 . Marasmusine (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Decathlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Couldn't find published 3rd party sources, so doesn't seem to qualify as encyclopedically notable. See also #9 at [1]. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-14t22:39z 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Scouting Magazine had a full review of the game, and although it isn't viewable, so did A+ magazine. As this is an old game that predates the popularity of the internet, I suspect there are more sources in print magazines that aren't available online. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some sources seem to exist. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt as it is an old game.--Sloane (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2011 (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.