Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden (machinima)


 * 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 Delete -- JForget  23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eden (machinima)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable entry. Cited references are either self-published source or unreliable forums. Delete --PeaceNT (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep &mdash; It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be ironic or something? JuJube (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING as well as the more official Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read them both many a time, and they're both wrong. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to know your opinion on this, but I think we should continue to follow the community-guided policies at WP:N until an absolute inclusionary stance is taken in Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you not realize that these so-called "policies" are in fact merely reflective of what's already going on in the trenches?  This means that the proper way of changing them is to do what I'm doing--make my effort in the trenches, and work to get others to do the same.  If that happens, then these so-called "policies" will be changed to reflect that, because that's all they are.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Good luck with that. o_o JuJube (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete google turns up some results, but none are reliable, google news turns up nothing, you would think if it was notable at least one reporter might write an article on the internet about it. Because of the lack of sources etc. I think that it fails the general notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I personally think this is interesting and realize the amount of work the project has taken - I do not think at this time it is notable enough for inclusion. Let the first season run through, and if it is good, it will get the recognition it needs to come back here.  Addionne (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above - subject matter doesn't seem to be notable yet. Una LagunaTalk 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — References are neither verifiable nor third-party. In addition, article fails to establish out-of-universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sources aren't adequate to establish notability, forum posts and a self-published website just aren't good enough. EvilRedEye (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.