Source assessment table: prepared by User:Quaemenelimbus Does not discuss significance, reception, etc, and even if it did, there's no independent sources at all for it. No sufficient independent coverage to meet notability. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Reply I can't believe it survived twice in the past with such weak sourcing. I need to do some searching before I can safely say delete, but I can easily say that nothing on the prior two AFDs showed any valid path to meeting the GNG.Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.Doing a quick google search shows no reviews from any review aggregator, no reviews from IGN nor any other big game reviewer. t0 m3 02:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Reply Sorry, I should clarify, I am for voting for delete. You do you, but it shouldn't have its own page just because you like it. Some need to understand that just because you play a niche game, and enjoy it, doesn't mean it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Honestly, its astonishing that it has made it through two deletion nominations in the past, with this being its 3rd. According to its own website, the most players that have ever been online simultaneously was under a thousand, and its got virtually 0 coverage from credible sources. Under none of Wikipedia's policies should this game ever have been considered notable enough for its own article. This game is not notable, with the only sources being first party from its creator, and the games own website (except for one to its own Github page). Help, my article got nominated for deletion!Įternal Lands ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination) ( Find sources: Google ( books.New to Articles for Deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |