Deletion of Jones in the Fast Lane

Comment: and '''cleanup''' – the |game guide material could go, but otherwise there is sufficient notability established in that deletion is not necessary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:GAMEGUIDE)

Comment: My |personal opinion is the game was a pioneer for the "electronic boardgame" style, one of the first to introduce the concept of an electronic cash economy and a trailblazer in graphics and intuitive gameplay. Alas, the current references don't yet conclusively |verify these points. That's not surprising given the age of the game, and I suspect a thorough examination of video-game texts or research papers would uncover more and better sources. Entire chapters or in-depth articles aren't needed - just a few references noting Jones' contribution to what came after. I don't have a library of video-game texts and wouldn't know where to look, but hopefully someone better versed in the subject area will come forward during the AfD. In the absence of this I'd say '''weak delete''' - the sources (even my Stanford one) don't quite meet the notability threshold. One of those regrettable cases where the subject is notable in real life but we may be unable to include it because sources can't readily be found
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: I am concerned about some of the arguments put forward, which appear to imply that it is the nominator's responsibility to demonstrate non-notability. Apart from the obvious difficulties in demonstrating conclusively that references do not exist, the policy page erifiability clearly states "The ''burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material''" (emphasis from original). If the references that demonstrate notability are harder to find because they were published before widespread use of the Internet, that's fine, but it's still the responsibility of those editors who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that such references do exist, with more than just vague assertions. Having said that, I accept that the subject may be notable &ndash; perhaps even well-known in North America for example &ndash; and that it was just a poor article when nominated. Improvements have been made already, and that in itself is a positive outcome. In my opinion, an additional reference to "significant coverage in a reliable source" (I don't think a student essay can reasonably be counted as such) would be sufficient to fully establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: article is in an  state, and that's not a reason for deletion. We'd only delete it if we found that no amount of improvement would allow it to meet guidelines. This is a game published by Sierra, a very important publisher in the game industry. There's no doubt in my mind that this article could even reach featured article status with a lot of work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)