Deletion of Alpha Omega (game)

Comment: The article in question is well-written, informative, and the reasoning that it violates  and  is ambiguous at best. A quick Google search will show that the concerned game is at the very least well-known amongst its target demographic. Furthermore, the article does not seem even remotely PR-esque, nor is it overly speculative, as it only details facts about the gameplay of the concerned RPG, as well as related press coverage and events
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:N)

Comment: which game mechanic is that?  Do you mean the dice pool or the customisability?  Neither of those are new.  Regarding the media coverage, neither the RPG nor the promotional game have had any third party coverage, and neither have had any coverage since shortly after the release.  #Notability is not temporary|Notability is not temporary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: So s I understand it you agree that, as it stands, it looks non-notable; but you think there might be some evidence of notability if you had more time to check?  The meat puppets brought in by La Bicyclette from the EHWR forums have failed to find any third-party coverage of a game that they're the experts on; all they've dug up is a few press releases written by the game's authors.  I don't think there's anything else to find.  Anyway, if they *did* find evidence of notabilty, they can always recreate the page and cite it there.  Look at the sixth example in 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:PROBLEM)

Comment: Really? All I see is just reprints of press releases and a non-notable RPG blog. The latter isn't a |reliable source, and press releases are not enough to establish notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Not exactly a |strong argument there. The games you mention have had coverage in |reliable sources, which means they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This game and it's marketing campaign do not; ergo they are not notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ALLORNOTHING||WP:RS)

Comment: Alpha Omega (game) - How can one even now this game exists, given that no sources are given about the game itself and that, well, it does not yet exist? A non-existing non-sourced subject does not deserve an article. Of course an article can be written when the game will be published and covered by reliable source. And, as a '''comment''': I assume good faith as much as the next man, but how is it that so many anonymous editors are positive about the fact that the article is "useful" (which is | not a reason for keeping) and that the authors are not affiliated with whomever produces the game
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL)

Comment: although I wouldn't have added EHWR if I'd been aware of its AFD at the time I nominated it, I do think it needs another look now that AO has been announced.  It received some coverage because it was mistakenly associated with J.J. Abrams; when it became clear that it wasn't related to him, the coverage stopped; and since #Notability is not temporary|Notability is not temporary, temporary coverage doesn't make it notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)