Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Blurred Line

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.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Blurred Line[edit]

NN homemade CRPG. As written, fails WP:WEB, since it is not the subject of multiple non-trivial works; though listed reference might count as one so could be considered notable if others were found. Percy Snoodle 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rereading the given reference[1], the "story" section would seem to be lifted straight from that website. Percy Snoodle 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn RPG-Maker game, but it's NOT a copyvio! The Allexperts site is sourced from Wikipedia under the GDFL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK, my mistake - but in that case, it definitely doesn't count as a reference. Percy Snoodle 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable RPG Maker game. There's no reliable sources about this game, as compared to Super Columbine Massacre RPG (which is probably the only RPG Maker game that meets the notability guidelines). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be possible to find sources, though I'm not counting on it. Every search I've tried thus far has indicated that this is one of the most highly regarded games created with RPG Maker, so I'll troll through and see if I can find a notable review someplace. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... isn't common sense being forgotten here? The "quality" or so-called relevance of the source of a subject is directly related to its nature. This game is very notable as far as independent games go, and is quite relevant within its context, as Google hits may tell. But oh well, I see this will be a massacre of deletes, so I'll add it to my to-do list and eventually make an attempt at a better article. --Sn0wflake 01:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Keep. --Sn0wflake 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:N. What the RPG Maker community thinks doesn't matter unless that opinion can be attributed to reliable sources. Right now, this game doesn't appear to have any coverage in such sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you misread me? I'm talking about exactly that. Logic over a rule. --Sn0wflake 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, you think we should toss the rulebook out the window and make an exception just this once because this game is just so awesome! Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Everything in Wikipedia must be attributable to reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, the warmth of AfD. I know perfectly well how the system works. And yes, I am saying to throw the rulebook out the window, because as far as I remember this is a discussion environment, and this proccess exists to access whether something is relevant or not. Within its context, the game is relevant. That's all. Also, please don't twist my words, this kind of prepotence often leads to unnecessary discussion, so don't put my comments as if I was some AOL kiddie, as have been respectul in them. --Sn0wflake 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was put up as a copyvio, but the one source is actually a copy of a Wikipedia article in the first place, so it was a circular source (which I've removed), not a copyvio issue. Mango juice^talk 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable game. Yes, it may be difficult to find officially reliable sources, but that is a reason to work hard and improve the article, not to delete it. I noticed that this game has won awards, per coverage atan RPG wiki and the original source. Matchups 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri (via) 07:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very very few RPG Maker games are notable, unless multiple sources are added, then this one isn't. RPG Maker awards are about as meaningless as Employee of the Month. - hahnch e n 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RPG wiki and the original source do not count as multiple, non-trivial sources independent of the creator. hbdragon88 04:30, 10 April 2007 (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.