Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual novelty


 * 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. The comments that no reliable sources have been provided outweigh the assertions that the software is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Visual novelty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable, no GNews hits, no reliable or verifiable sources found. Home page of software states it is still in Beta testing, perhaps too soon. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article describes the software but wih no claim of achieved notability, nor can evidence of such notability be found. At best, as user GregJackP says, this is too soon. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutrally worded, but not showing notability. Peridon (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not too soon. The first version was released in August 2008 . It's called a beta only to emphasize that it's in active development. The official forums have 900 registered members. Additionally this article was misnamed by the original author - as I've stated in its Talk section. Searching for "Visual Novelty" will yield much less results than the software's actual name: "Novelty visual novel maker", in case this is why no notability has been found. In my searches I find Novelty often discussed along side other Visual novel engines for which there are existing Wikipedia articles. 213.21.96.10 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Angry Keep Because it does have references. Well, not online news references such as CNET, etc. But it does have non-primary references. References that aren't from the site itself, or promoters of the site / software. Bloggers are independant. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As a rule, blogs are not reliable sources.  GregJackP   Boomer!   23:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Then CNET shouldn't count either. All of its "News articles" are basically blog entries of CNET Staff. Yet, it still counts. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference is that the Wikipedia Community has decided to accept CNET or other web sources where there is a paid staff and strong editorial control, but not to accept other blogs. That discussion is more appropriate at WP:RSN, not at this AfD.  GregJackP   Boomer!


 * Keep. It's a pretty well known program within the community as one of the chief alternatives to Ren'Py. Any discussions of notability / sources should be reconsidered once the page is moved to the correct title. I suggest Novelty (visual novel engine). --AlexChurchill (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Any refs from WP:RS to support that? I would be happy to withdraw my nomination if there is anything to indicate notability.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:40, 19 July 2012 (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.