Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television,  and Internet.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Swampy Marsh: for now? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not mentioned at that target. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Problem that was easily fixed. See Jeff "Swampy" Marsh - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and now it's borderline WP:UNDUE. Seriously, a not-yet-extant project with minimal RS coverage should not get more characters than a Phineas and Ferb revival, should it? Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t have more characters? There’s a whole multi paragraph section about Phineas and Ferb, compared to a single sentence that mentions the announcement of the SALEM show. Doesn’t appear to have any DUE issues. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with ONE sentence mentioning it and turning it into a redirect as Musky Yank proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's one sentence on this (as added) and one sentence on the 2024 planned revivial. That's probably UNDUE. That is, this is such an insignificant part of Marsh's career that per DUE it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Update: I am changing my opinion to the following: Redirect to Swampy Marsh (first choice) and Draftify (second choice). This counts as my solitary vote for this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can agree, that's why I stand by my previous opinion. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest).Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.
 * I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option) my above mentioned !vote.
 * I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh (there's two good sources which show his involvement). My !vote is mentioned above. If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:
 * "'In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series. The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha 'Sam' Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name."
 * It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Note: I added the new text: "My !vote is mentioned above" but have not changed any other part of this comment, apart from doing a strikethrough for some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.
 * As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.
 * Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about things going "my way," I'm just saying that what will, probably, happen if a certain result is reached. I have no influence over whether people are convinced to keep the article or not. Their decision is their business and it seems too time consuming to try and convince people here to change their minds. People already have their minds made up and there's nothing I can do about that. At this point, all I hope is that the page becomes a redirect. If it doesn't, then oh well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Delete, Redirect, Keep and Draftify. A reminder, only BOLD one vote that reflects your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you change your mind, strike any previous votes. Do not unnecessarily bold words that might be confused for additional votes or it could be seen as disruptive editing. One editor=One vote. Also, avoid bludgeonining any discussion. If you find yourself repeating your comments, cancel your post and move on. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Deletion isn't right or wrong; if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here. We have rules in place and this will fall apart if we don't follow them, "just because" isn't a valid reason for keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are going in circles here. I understand your sentiment that deletion isn't right or wrong but that "if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here" and that there are rules. However, bias always plays into discussions such as this, whether people have that bias willingly or unwillingly. In any case, and at this point in the discussion, I maintain that this article has ENOUGH value to qualify for a redirect. If the series DOES release this year, which I see as not outside the realm of possibility (anything is possible), and reliable sources attest to that release, THEN it can come back into the article mainspace. The idea it has NO value and should be wiped away and thrown in the trash bin is wholly incorrect, as you and the others foolishly favoring deletion (rather than any alternatives), are trying to claim.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, but we don't need to be creating walls of text at this point; I've said my part, and you yours. I think we're at a good point now, let's leave it at that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right that I could do that, but personally I think a redirect would be preferable as I already have many drafts / articles in progress. Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through part of my comment so there isn't any confusion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure a redirect is appropriate; this project has been around since 2019, if it's not become notable by now, redirecting to this person's article doesn't bring anything of value. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It does bring something of value. For those who are interested in Marsh, who is a BIG name in the animation industry, it only makes sense. Your continued harping that this article doesn't bring anything of value to Wikipedia is sounding like a broken record. It is not productive to ending this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster   (trout me!)  07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The target isn't mentioned at Marsh, though, so it might cause confusion for people who are trying to find it. Spinixster   (trout me!)  15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will be confusing if we added in one or two sentences about it, using the formulation I mentioned above. If it comes to it, I would be fine with a draft, its just at this point in the discussion and since no one else seems to support "weak keep", a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't draft, it's been around since 2018/2019, if it hasn't become notable in the 5 years since, I wouldn't count on a sudden influx of critical notice making it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that view. While I personally would lean more toward a redirect, a draft for me, wouldn't be completely out of the question. Historyday01 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment The closer may note that the prime author of this article has peppered bolded opinions (e.g., 'a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.) throughout this discussion, which might be mistaken for multiple !votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's only because my original opinion was "weak keep" but after continuing this discussion, I later changed to redirect as a first option and draft as a second option. So, that is, in sum, my vote, as it were, for this AfD. It was not my intention to have them mistaken for multiple votes, but rather just restating my opinion as connected to different discussions within this AfD. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've "unbolded" them all except the first "votes" but there were a lot of them. Historyday01, please stop doing this, it could be seen as disruptive editing and could get you blocked from this discussion. Only bold your original "vote" and not other comments that could be mistaken for additional votes in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. But, I no longer agree with my original one, so, I changed it to my updated opinion. You don't need to say its disruptive editing or will get me blocked from this discussion, as that only poisons the well for everyone else who engages after this point. I have gone through and updated the text so as to make it more clear what my own opinion is. I was not being disruptive in any sense, I was only restating my opinion. This whole AfD should have never happened (which happened on Pride Month of all times), but here we are. I also personally don't think relisting this will be productive either (if I have to guess, it will never lead to anything positive). I am abandoning this discussion. I have no intention of ever returning. I've already shared my views here. That is all.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete lack of good redirect target. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Swampy Marsh. There is a possibility that this project will come back in the future, and more than that, due to Marsh's role in this project (and considering his role in the animation industry more broadly), it is worth mentioning this in one sentence, and redirecting this page as a result. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable: subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG (sourcing is very weak, much of it actually deprecated) and there is no obvious redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with what you are saying and @Traumnovelle, here (see my above comments for that). Other editors have noted a suitable redirect target. Please engage with those editors on that topic, as I no longer wish to participate in this discussion (I've already said enough), which could have been solved through a discussion on the article's talk page rather than bringing the page to AfD, but none of the editors involved (either the OP, or anyone else) decided to go that route, unfortunately.Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It'd be undue to mention this on his page given stuff that actually has a Wikipedia article is only listed in the infobox and given no prose, and a redirect on it's own would just confuse the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, but not supporting a redirect is unfortunate. I'm a new user on here and comments like this are not giving me any encouragement to post on here again. This whole discussion has a negative tone to it and it says a lot about this site that its still ongoing. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional article about content that doesn't exist yet. The affiliation with Swampy Marsh is too tenuous for any content about this (apparently failed) project to be on his article; it is not a viable redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your view is completely wrong. The fact that you are calling it that shows you don't care about this topic. Additionally, the fact you are not supporting a redirect is just as unfortunate. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note Sockpuppet investigations/Historyday01 has been filed to determine whether 71.246.78.77 is the same person or someone trying to get Historyday01 in trouble. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment here. 71.246.78.77 is not my account. It seems they are wanting to get me into trouble, as you point out. In terms of this AfD, my opinion remains unchanged and I look forward to the conclusion of this AfD discussion so all of us can move forward. Historyday01 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - The show seems to be in limbo, if not outright cancelled, and the current sources regarding it are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Considering the non-notability of this stalled project, redirecting to Swampy Marsh does not seem appropriate, and the sentence mentioning it that was added to that article during this AFD to facilitate the argument for Redirection should be removed. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NFF, it should be considered if it's ever released.Tehonk (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.