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 no consensus. Nominator withdrew but there are still outstanding delete comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if the article isn't improved. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (role-playing game)

[edit]

Non-notable, possible COI ViperSnake151 Talk 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G2 and possibly A1. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This also qualifies possible as G11 per the author's username (HYBRID.RPG). --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a question as to whther HYBRID should even be considered an RPG, but it has been reviewed. [1]. It's also been rated by rpg.net as the second worst roleplaying game of all time [2] and the second worst roleplaying book of any kind. [3] Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So hold on, I'm going to rewrite this article. Consider this a withdrawl. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes. Relisting for further comments on the nominator's rewrite. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, I have seen HYBRID discussed previously, and always wondered what the hell the author was on about. Should be kept for now if the nominator is going to work on it, without prejudice for renomming further down the line if nothing is turned up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Lankiveil. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 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.