Deletion of H1Z1

Comment: Since there's a naysayer or two aggressively against it, I'll back up the claims of sources. Below are all sources that have |consensus to be deemed reliable/usable per discussions linked at /S, and have dedicated articles (not passing mentions) discussing the game in significant detail
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:VG)

Comment: It seems fair to assume we'll will soon have enough info to build a valuable article about this AAA game. Some good coverage already: http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5599530/sony-online-entertainment-spills-details-on-post-apocalyptic-mmo-h1z1 Polygon (http://www.polygon.com/2014/4/9/5598202/h1z1-zombie-mmo-sony-online-entertainment 2), http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-reveals-new-post-apocalyptic-mmo-game-h1z1/1100-6418884/ GameSpot,http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/04/09/h1z1-game-is-probably-sony-online-entertainments-next-game-but-what-is-it/ PC Gamer, https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=h1z1&oq=h1z1&gs_l=news-cc.3...470.483.0.569.3.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac.1. others... It would be annoying to go through the deletion/restoration processes just because of a debatable  application, that will anyway be made irrelevant in the weeks to come
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I don't think that  applies here.  It is officially announced by one of the largest companies in the world and will have unique properties.  This is going to move beyond the news stage and I look forward to the expansion of this article from it's current sparse look
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: Per Sergecross73 and the multiple independent reliable sources he's located that cover the topic in depth. I agree with JimeoWan's summary and frankly "''Keep'': " is adequate and sufficient rationale to keep. TOOSOON is an essay, not a guideline like GNG, and CRYSTAL (AKA WP:SPECULATION) doesn't apply because this is a demonstrably verifiable topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: There's already enough |third party coverage out there to justify an article. Rather than wasting time deleting and recreating, we ought to just work on improving how it is now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Well, people have been more than sure, that, it'd be notable sometime after, and it is a waste of time to delete and create the same article! So keep it. Good one. I do not care for any person's time being wasted to delete and re-create this article. If people do care for time being wasted to delete and re-create an article, they should open a RfC to abandon AfD, ProD and CSD processes. Coming back to the topic, Article is about a game released yesterday by a company, many person seem to be a fan of, '''doesn't meet notability standard'''. All sources, are "release-event-source". I would argue, people here are trying to establish '''|one event notability'''. Yes, the game is '''notable for one event, for being released by the Sony Entertainment'''. Look, it is Abc news, and a game has been released or is about to release, by the company Sony Entertainment, and it follows all where as it is plague. Its feature made known by the company is, XXXX (page full, substantial coverage?). All sources do mention the same content, their ways! Bottom line, it should be deleted because it doesn't satisfy |Wikipedia notability guideline. One event notability and future sources, has never been an acceptable argument, to keep an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:DUCKSEASON. All keep !votes here, has a common rationale, that it is notable "because it is released by Sony Entertainment" and because . *ignore 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NOTINHERITED)