Deletion of Castle Adventure

Comment: It was advertised in many magazines in the 1980's as an adventure game (http://books.google.co.nz/books?lr=&q=%22Castle+Adventure%22+DOS&btnG=Search+Books google book results).  The subject is notable because it gained popularity when Keypunch Software controversially and illegally published the game a few years later, becoming one of the most popular non-commercial games of the 80's (http://www.thebentkangaroo.com/Computer/PCReviews/CastleAdventure.html 1, http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/CastleAdventure/CA-TheGame.html 2). It was a very early example of shareware (http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/CastleAdventure/CA-TheGame.html 1).  Care should be taken with any google search to include "Kevin Bales" as there are several Castle Adventure products.  A http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22Castle+Adventure%22+%22Kevin+Bales%22&start=100&sa=N google search of ''"Castle Adventure" "Kevin Bales"'' indicates a great number of hits for something that existed well in advance of the Internet, or indeed, the Video game industry as it stands today.   is a guideline, and even if it wasn't, there would be a good case for breaking the rules with this article.  While these sources listed above are not necessarily great for verifying the information, they would appear to support that the game was '''notable at the time it was released''', and notability is not temporary.  Any article that was notable in 1984, would still be notable now.  Yes, I can accept that the notability of the sources is questionable, and that its tough to verify.  But when considering deletion ''it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be''.  I think that the notability of the game, if it hasn't already been established, could be if we were to read through magazines from the mid 1980's.  Bear in mind that gaming media didn't exist as such back then, and this game was created by 14 year old and later stolen and illegally released by a company.  This is why it received notoriety in later years
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: per Someoneanother, Home of the Underdogs is not a great source of notability, and the review barely touches into critical coverage. Other than that, no non-trivial coverage in |reliable |verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)