Deletion of Astro empires

Comment: and '''Salt''' — I agree with Someoneanother on the lack of establishment of notability solely from an interview. This has already been shown in the corresponding deletion review that the user so-kindly linked. In addition, it is only mentioned as a reference; it is not even cited anywhere in the article. Now I do not speak Portugese (this ''is'' an ''English'' Wikipedia, anyway), but I can only speculate that the interview only deals with the development of the game and not with any mention of how the game is being received, critical coverage, etc. Furthermore, none of the articles cited are reliable nor are they verifiable per . The references are either from the site itself or from the site's forum. This is a textbook failure of establishing any verifiability. And I am not even mentioning that this article is a blatant |advertisement (see Astro empires#Upgraded Status
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:ADVERT)

Comment: Being both an Astro Empires player and a Wikipedia administrator, I was very cautious about making any position on this AfD. However, after reading all the available material and the past history of this article, I am forced to agree that the article should be deleted and protected to prevent further recreation until such a time comes that it can qualify for inclusion. All the arguments made to support the article seem to fail ,  and . Furthermore, I see no additional information that has been included in this incarnation of the article that wasn't available for the last deletion and subsequent deletion review. As such, I feel that this article qualifes for speedy deletion under G4 criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: It's skirting the |notability line, but it still needs a lot of cleanup to keep it from looking like an advertisement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I'm unsatisfied by the suggestion that "One interview in a Portuguese newspaper doesn't satisfy ".  Clearly it does; a newspaper is a reasonable source, and the fact that it's in Portuguese should not count against it on an international site.  I'm also unimpressed with "World of Warcraft this one is not", which I consider disrespectful and sneering. -- However, I consider the article falls below the NPOV standards and should be edited to read less like an advertisement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: A Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements|third opinion has been requested as to the recent  accusation
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: The two newspaper sources are the same ones brought up in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_4 deletion review in February. Interviews are usfeul for development information but are mostly useless sources for reception - which is where |notability is asserted in videogame articles. Developers talking about their game does not equal an unbiased secondary source. The review highlighted shows no signs of being |reliable. I would be happy to switch to keep if some reliable reviews are found, but the whack-a-mole article history, http://forum.astroempires.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48542 canvassing on Astro Empire's forum and rambling irrelevancies regarding WP's inclusion guidelines smacks of pitch-till-you-win
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)