Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RealmCrafter

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 Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RealmCrafter

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7, and actually that is probably correct; any assertion of notability is so buried in cruft and advertorial that it does not exactly shine out. However, it's been here a while and a few people have edited it, so there's no rush. Sources are mainly the publisher and forums / press releases / other unreliable stuff. Maybe it's just a bad article on a good subject. Or maybe the speedy tagger was right. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I searched Google for both RealmCrafter and RealmCrafter review. There are a lot of hits, though mostly to Torrents and warez and such. No reviews save for blogs and DevMaster.net, the latter appears itself to be of dubious notability. So I'm leaning towards a delete, though if someone can dig up some reliable sources and seriously rewrite the article, I may change to a weak keep. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources either which demonstrate notability, the non-neutral wording can be cleaned up but it indicates this is about free publicity, the external links to umpteen non-notable projects based on RealmCrafter doesn't help either. No prejudice against restoration/recreation if relevant sources appear. Someone another 10:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.