Deletion of Old Man Murray (2nd nomination)

Comment: Sorry I just noticed I didn't vote. It's pretty obvious that Entropy Stew and 173.0.2.204 have given well established and more importantly non-contested examples of the notability. SchuminWeb has made no effort dispute these posts beyond putting the little SPA tag on the users who made them. If he doesn't have an interest in disputing these claims maybe he should leave the conversation, since they are obviously the strongest ones. He doesn't literally need to state he doesn't like it for  to apply here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: To all the newcomers: If you find some better sources than the current ones, having looked at  to see what is reliable, and add them to the article, then you might stand a better chance than if you go in for mudslinging and ranting. Please note that the marking of single purpose accounts here at AfD is standard practice. I realise that in the gaming world it isn't always easy to find reliable sources, as blogs and forums don't count for much - even though that's the backbone of the info transfer. Do what you can, and I'll look in again. You might be able to shift me from this uncomfortable fence that I'm sitting on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Fails  for lack of significant (or pretty much any) coverage in reliable third-party sites. Of the nine references provided in the article, five are to Old Man Murray itself, and the others are to blogs (and even they do not provide "significant" coverage, just mentions). Google News Archive finds a few passing mentions in ''Wired'' Magazine, otherwise nothing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)