Deletion of Milo's Astro Lanes

Comment: I was the prod remover, FWIW. The reviews in question are http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/152/152295p1.html IGN and http://uk.gamespot.com/milos-astro-lanes/reviews/milos-astro-lanes-review-2543683/ GameSpot. I don't see how these are primary sources, being external to the game's publishers and reviewing the game in a once removed fashion described by . Could you be more specific as to how these are primary as opposed to secondary sources please Indrian
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: the NOM appears to be misconstruing the meaning of primary, somehow transposing an example and policy. Take a further look at  and its footnotes and the included links. Review articles are cited as being a very typical secondary source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Nomination based on a misunderstanding of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)