D) The article was already been nominated for deletion once, andmost of the commenters argued against deletion furthermore, the article has only improved in the four months since, and it's only going to get better as more sites cover it and more devblogs are released regarding the game's mechanics and development cycle. C) You can't say it's self-promotion if none of the page editors are actually associated with the game. B) Because of coverage in multiple reliable sources like the Escapist, Joystiq, G4, and GamePro, it has met the guideline for notability and is therefore eligible for an article. (Drelostams (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)) A) It's a full, downloadable title, not a simple browser game. But should every one of them have their own page? This is shameless self promotion of something very insignificant. Yes, multiple websites about casual gaming have mentioned this upcoming game, the same is true of many other free online games. One of many that constantly released, dozens come out every month, they do not all merit an article on Wikipedia. This is an unfinished, unlicensed, simple browser game.
