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. After nominator has withdrawn, there is unanimous consensus not to delete. Salvidrim! ✉ 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sometimes video games like this, from the mid-90's, don't have much coverage on the internet, but did receive coverage in printed magazines, which was the medium of choice back then. It may be worth searching to see if there's any proof of coverage there, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As already pointed out, the game was released a few years before gaming websites became popular, so 1990s gaming magazines are the best places to look for coverage. The article itself mentions that Dragon (magazine) published a game review. Mobygames lists four additional magazines which reviewed the game. I seem to recall seeing a game review published in Computer Gaming World sometime in '94 or '95 too, but I don't have time at the moment to dig through my collection of back issues. So that makes five, possibly six, magazine published reviews. That should be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to have been moderately popular indeed Alfy32 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]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.