Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SNES Game Maker: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
:Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Do not Delete''' - There is similar software out there that could be the reason why the software is under development. Similar articales on wikipedia speaks of these similar peaces of software [[User:Roberttheman2008|Robert]] ([[User talk:Roberttheman2008|talk]]) '''I nominate to act against deletion, it cannot be deleted for 30 days giving Johnson enough time to appear and edit the articale in order to apply what would be considered undisputed sources.''' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Do not Delete''' - There is similar software out there that could be the reason why the software is under development. Similar articales on wikipedia speaks of these similar peaces of software [[User:Roberttheman2008|Robert]] ([[User talk:Roberttheman2008|talk]]) '''I nominate to act against deletion, it cannot be deleted for 30 days giving Johnson enough time to appear and edit the articale in order to apply what would be considered undisputed sources. Also, the articale has been deleted twice already and this will be third time, the next time it is posted, it will be posted by Johnson himself due to discovery that the articale is no longer avalible. Information that can be used to contact Mr. Johnson must be found so that I may have time to place it in the articale itself.'''<br> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*'''Delete''' - Uncited, unreleased, non-notable. [[User:Rbanzai|Rob Banzai]] ([[User talk:Rbanzai|talk]]) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - Uncited, unreleased, non-notable. [[User:Rbanzai|Rob Banzai]] ([[User talk:Rbanzai|talk]]) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''delete''' An ''emerging project'' is rarely notable. There are no [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources listed in the article. No assertion of notability. I found none on the internet. Anyone favoring speedy deletion might want to know it has been speedily deleted twice before. A case could be made for speedy deletion as an advert.[[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font>]] 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
*'''delete''' An ''emerging project'' is rarely notable. There are no [[WP:RS|reliable]], [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources listed in the article. No assertion of notability. I found none on the internet. Anyone favoring speedy deletion might want to know it has been speedily deleted twice before. A case could be made for speedy deletion as an advert.[[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#00ff00"> Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#bb00bb">cierekim''' </font>]] 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:04, 10 September 2008
- The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Product is currently non-notable. Thought about speedying under a7 but it seems to fall under software category than company/croup Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I should say that I did nominate it for speedy but then thought of the possible distinction and replaced it with the AFD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do not Delete - There is similar software out there that could be the reason why the software is under development. Similar articales on wikipedia speaks of these similar peaces of software Robert (talk) I nominate to act against deletion, it cannot be deleted for 30 days giving Johnson enough time to appear and edit the articale in order to apply what would be considered undisputed sources. Also, the articale has been deleted twice already and this will be third time, the next time it is posted, it will be posted by Johnson himself due to discovery that the articale is no longer avalible. Information that can be used to contact Mr. Johnson must be found so that I may have time to place it in the articale itself.
—Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) - Delete - Uncited, unreleased, non-notable. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- delete An emerging project is rarely notable. There are no reliable, verifiable sources listed in the article. No assertion of notability. I found none on the internet. Anyone favoring speedy deletion might want to know it has been speedily deleted twice before. A case could be made for speedy deletion as an advert. Dlohcierekim 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No sources, crystalballing, describes a program that, even if it were out now and verifiable, might not be notable. Different versions have been speedied a few times in the last few days, though AfD is probably a better place, since A7 isn't supposed to apply to software. gnfnrf (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)