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 speedy delete. Snow. If it were an album, it would be speedyable. A game by a n-n person is similarly n-n StarM 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Toki high[edit]

Toki Toki high (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

NN-notable game> WP:MADEUP Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your game. Reyk _YO! 01:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Under longstanding Wikipedia policy, all secondary schools are considered inherently... excuse me, what's that? It isn't? It's about a game? Never mind. Delete. Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wat? WP:N/WP:PRODUCT seems relevant. Try again later please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: A made up game. Schuym1 (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete Searching for the term brings up 2 results, both of which are wikipedia pages, either doesn't exist at all or it's just another hobby game sat on someone's hard-drive. Someoneanother 15:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obviously non-notable, no refs, no reviews... --GreyCat (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete — While a scant few games from RPG Maker meet our inclusion standards, this is clearly not one of them. Rationale include lack of verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2008 (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.