Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FPS Creator

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. JForget 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPS Creator

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Another editor had nominated this for speey deletion, which I declined and added a prod tag for them. A quick rationale for deleting this article is "The article is about software that does not have any reliable sources to establish notability." NW (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Game Creators - it is, at least, verifiable. (From Intel.com: [1]) Marasmusine (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "nonnotable" software? It has a rather large user base (of around several thousand, including those who pirate it). The article just needs some serious revision. I'll get on that now, actually.The-sigmatic (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe has linked to the guideline that explains exactly how this might be nonnotable software. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, it does not matter how many people are pirating this software if we cannot drudge up examples of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. 5 days after The-sigmatic claimed to fix, still no 3rd party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 07:55, 13 November 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.