Deletion of The Mana World

Comment: Unless reliable sources are found by the conclusion of this AFD. The expectation of deletion criteria is not that articles will be completed on creation, but that they must be in at least a vaguely ok condition so as to fulfil the most basic criteria for inclusion. These include assertions of notability that may be backed up with reliable sources if contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are expected to contain only information which may be justified, therefore any one of us may reasonably question any facet of information that is not explicitly justified with a reference to a reliable source. Articles which fail to do this may be deleted. If sources exist, then they may be added and the great majority of the delete comments (note I say comment not vote), if not all of them, will become keeps - including mine. As a number of contributors to this AFD are intimately associated with the project, they are surely well placed to identify third party references to the article subject, such as references in the mainstream gaming press. I would also like to point out that the reason for the objection on grounds of involvement with the project is that Wikipedia has a very clear guideline on |conflicts of interest that affected editors may wish to read up on. See, when you have an imtimate association with an article then your objectivity in relation to that article's fulfilment of Wikipedia policy and guidelines may be compromised. A third party view and critque of an article's notability does not necessarily violate  and indeed is essential for objectivity. I have never heard of the article's subject, and I am questioning it's notability - I put it to those who know about it to prove to me that it has notability because I just don't see it. Please take advantage of this opportunity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:IDONTKNOWIT)

Comment: Normally I'd advise against nominating something this quickly. But because this is an open source game that has only been out for a few months, it's not surprising that there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Completely non-notable, as it does not meet the |general notability guideline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: let us know if it actually ''wins'' an award and I might be convinced it passes , particularly if combined with pointers to substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Also, I see that both otability and WP:GOOGLEHITS have been described in the above as "policies", which is incorrect. The former is a guideline and the latter is an essay
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: unless |made notable before AfD expiry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: Notability, popularity, number of users, standards of opensource vs. commercial products, all of these are secondary.  The article NEEDS references to reliable, third party coverage.  I don't see any.  I can't find any.  Without it, all of the other discussions are pointless.  Per , which is a policy, there should not be an article on a subject without reliable, third party sources.  Now, if sources are found, the conversation about notability still needs to be had, but without them, it's a pretty clear cut case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: First of all, I would like to mention that I have no personal grudge against this game or open source projects in general. However, I would be happy to discuss with you the links you have provided. It appears that the content on those two pages are the same paragraph that is provided at several of the other links in the article. Are there any third party reviews of the game? Those would be good additions to the article. As I mentioned earlier, I would have no problem withdrawing this AfD nomination if |reliable sources are provided. I see someone mentioned a magazine article, which would be a great source. I hope we can work through this peacefully and best of luck
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This article was created on ''18:13, 13 July 2008'' and nominated for deletion ''19:06, 13 July 2008''; nomination for AfD was also bot-assisted. Reasons for nomination is a textbook example of , , and judging by the quick nomination for deletion, . In addition, if this is not a textbook example of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, I don't know what is. (Surely no one expects a house to build itself in 45 minutes time.) —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:IDONTKNOWIT||WP:WHOCARES)

Comment: My biggest concern when nominating this article was the lack of significant coverage in |reliable, third-party sources. Almost all of the Google results are for the same advertising blurb ("…a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG…"). In my opinion, there was not enough coverage to meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)