Deletion of PlaneShift (computer game)

Comment: Going with  here, and I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH)

Comment: If you claim it's non-notable and unverifiable, then how do you know so damn much about it?  This sounds like a  here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Wikipedia policies on notabiliy exist for a reason. Actually, "notability" is something of a misnomer; what is at issue is not whether a given topic is important, significant, worthwhile, etc. It's a question of whether an encyclopedia article can plausibly be written about the subject without resorting to |original research or excessive reliance on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves|sources closely associated with the subject of the article. Numerical thresholds are #This_number_is_big_or_not_big_enough|generally not used as evidence for or against notability. For instance, a minor YouTube celebrity may have attracted 250,000 views and 0.0 mentions in reliable published sources outside YouTube. Conversely, someone who posts an incredibly offensive or shocking video (think Bud Dwyer) may attract only a few hundred views before being taken down, but be extensively covered in reliable published sources. The second person is considered "notable" for WP purposes, the first is not. This problem is ''especially'' acute when the only source for the number is the subject of the article itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:ATA)