Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SNES Game Maker


 * 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. BJ Talk 19:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The SNES Game Maker

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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. I want one of you who are for deletion to change your posision based on my proposal. Place a message on my talk page that will lead me to the original author. —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) — Roberttheman2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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. Dloh  cierekim  19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * switch to strong delete and salt per creator's attempt to buy Wikipedia on article talk page, see User_talk:Roberttheman2008 and because this is the third try at deletion. A rather sad attempt at spamming the 'pedia. So unable to meet notability and verifiability that it must use Wikipedia for promotion.  Dloh  cierekim  13:45, 11 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)
 * Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:N. Possibly Speedy Delete via CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) depending how the article was "deleted twice already". Equendil Talk 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete — Conflict of interest, original research, and crystalballing. Article's creator needs to read basic Wikipedia policies. Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't apply since this is the article's first time at an AfD. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete: I am calling for every single active member to be contacted in an attempt to find any imformation that I can't find as I intend to repost the articale if deleted. It cannot be considered spam if the information is true. Robert (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment You *should* follow the links offered here and read about Wikipedia's policies. Further attempts to recreate an article if deleted through this AfD process would result in speedy deletion. Equendil Talk 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment-- this is user's second !vote. He is AKA "Roberttheman2008". See above. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: (to Roberttheman2008) Slight clarification on the above: Recreating a previously deleted article will cause the article to be speedy-deleted IF the new article does not address the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. If it's deleted now, and the subject of the article later becomes notable and you can provide reliable, sourced information establishing its notability, it will not be speedy-deleted again.  At that time, a new AfD review would be called for if someone wanted to have the article deleted again.  Conversely, re-creating a deleted article just for the sake of doing so will not only get it CSD'd, but it may get you blocked for disruptive behavior. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the subject of the article should become notable in the future it would be best if the article were re-created in user space, then a WP:DRV filed for others to discuss whether it actually meets the notability issues discussed during the deletion.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm just going by what CSD G4 says - that gives a provision for improving the content in place. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete absolutely disgusting attempt to spam Wikipedia as evidenced here where the article creator basically tries to bribe Wikipedia into keeping the article. I also believe the editor needs an indef block as he is committing himself to making trouble, regardless of how inane it is (lol me & my pals wil boycot teh wikipedo!) JuJube (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt spamitycruft (or whatever neothingy you want to make up for it).Article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:COI, and any other number of policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell it doesn't pass a single one. Threats to recreate if deleted means it should be salted. The threatmaker can still recreate in userspace and seek approval for moving to mainspace if a remotely encyclopedic article evolves. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're looking for WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MuZemike (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note — A request for comment for user conduct has been initiated in regard to the situation above. MuZemike (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt per Dlohcierekim. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No references available, crystal balling etc. AlexJ (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (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.