Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Eden


 * 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   speedy keep. Per Amalthea's investigation. Also: clear consensus anyway. The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Eternal Eden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This nomination is on behalf of User talk:124.181.127.71, as requested on my talk page after I offered on Talk:Eternal Eden. Note: I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted. Their rationale: "It fails to meet the General Notability Guideline and does not have enough sufficient coverage in its sources. Of the sources, three are from the game creator's website, two are trivial mentions that do not really provide any coverage on the game, and two of the 'reviews' (the Game Tunnel review and the Aussie Nintendo review) are no longer online and just redirect to a 'page not found' error. The last two sources are from the same website (RPGFan) which I don't see listed in WP:VG/S." David 1217  What I've done 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not the most popular game, but it reported in some 3rd party materials, and a 3DS remake is in development. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/24069 ScienceApe (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The link you cite isn't significant coverage, and whether it's being remade is irrelevant to the game's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.220.203.74 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the link is significant coverage, but it is some coverage. The fact that it's being remade is in fact reported by 3rd party sources and contributes to notability. ScienceApe (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions . — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as per nom. There does seem to be some coverage of the game, but I personally think that more than the sources quoted in the article are needed, given that two no longer exist, and the rest are trivial mentions. The game being remade on Nintendo 3DS is interesting and it may lend some credibility but we must remember that notability is not inherited - I could make a game myself and then have it "remade" in Nintendo 3DS, and the existence of either one does not lend notability to the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.132.38 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 September 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Keep Ignoring most of the sources in the article as far as this discussion is concerned, there's this Gamertell review and here is the Game Tunnel review (don't forget the Wayback Machine folks, easily done, I do it myself regularly). There are also review on Jay is Games and another at Gamezebo - please note that Jayisgames does not enjoy the video game project's stamp of approval as a reliable source, however it is one I use regularly due to their longevity and relevance within the indie gaming sector. Gamezebo should have no strong objections however. Regarding the 3DS port, according to the developer's blog he is working on another game called Faerie'O so the 3DS port is not something that will have any bearing or relevant coverage for some time, should it ever happen. Short version: There's enough non-trivial coverage in reliable though not top-drawer sources to pass GNG IMO OMGLOLWTFBBQ. Someoneanother 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Weak Keep I'm happy to keep the article since there seems to be enough additional coverage. The nominator's concern was that the sources present in the article are no longer valid, so if these can be updated, I think it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.5.179 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)  CU note: likely sock vote struck.  Amalthea  20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral from me, but I just wanted to point out that I've made the suggested changes to the sources and, given that there are multiple reliable sources, the article seems fine to pass the GNG. ArkRe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep seems only JUST significant. It needs to be tidied up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 13 September 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Keep per Someoneanother's rationale. 148.168.96.23 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * CU note: OK, it seems all accounts that do not opine to keep this article, including the IP on whose behalf this AfD was started, are one and the same person (or close enough as makes no matter) -- and possibly affiliated with a competitor since they quite determinedly do everything to have Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords be kept. Considering this, I would recommend closing this AfD as a bad faith nomination. And to be clear, David1217 is of course merely the victim of his own helpfulness here. Happened to me once, too. :) Amalthea  20:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I didn't notice that something fishy was up... David  1217  What I've done 01:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep there are more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. Also, for what it's worth there is a blog post from the developer that says the game is being re-released in the Unity Pro engine. If this article is kept, changes will need to be made to reflect that it isn't just an RPG Maker game. Sentient Cat (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (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.