Deletion of Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool

Comment: I am unable to find significant coverage about this RPG making software to establish notability.  There's forum chatter about it but those aren't |reliable sources.  http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q1-2000/031400c.html RPG Gamer and http://www.gamespot.com/news/2541674/sword-of-moonlight-arrives-in-march Gamespot noted that the game was going to be released.  But that's not substantial coverage.  What is needed are multiple reviews in reliable sources, and I was unable to find any
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: If this article is in violation of roduct it would mean any publisher with individual pages for their video games would also be in violation. Looking at the links I see that From Software is a major publisher of video games. If their other products have individual entries, such as the Armored Core (including individual entries for each installment), than what is the difference here? Under roduct we read "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." From Software is a very well known publisher in the industry with critically acclaimed games. Reading the article, it's poorly written with improper grammar and uses none neutral phrases . My major fault to the article is it's use of resources from the company's Japanese webpage. The English wikipedia pages really need English sources so that information may be verified. Also, there is no REFLIST for the reference on the page. Other than terrible construction I cannot see a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:P||WP:NPV)

Comment: First, your initial argument is incorrect, because |notability is not inherited on Wikipedia articles.  '''Read that before you say that we are ignoring policy.'''  You can dismiss the process all you want, but in the end, all articles on Wikipedia need to first, be verifiable.  Second, games need to be notable.  Providing images and release information of the game may prove the game exists, but it's not usage to inform us that it is notable.  To provide evidence of notability, you should check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#What_is_appropriate.3F here.  Notable games require reviews or some kind of reception, or perhaps evidence from |reliable, third-party sources that it has made an impact in the gaming industry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:INDEPENDENT)

Comment: to From Software. Article does not meet our general notability guideline of significant coverage from reliable sources, or provide secondary source for verification. Redirect per  and cover there any basic information provided by the primary sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: Being a good and popular piece of software is not enough to warrant an article. Per #Notability, we need substantial coverage in reliable published third party sources, and such coverage is not in evidence judging by the article and this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)