Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Lands (3rd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Eternal Lands
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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). Under none of Wikipedia's policies should this game ever have been considered notable enough for its own article. 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. Honestly, its astonishing that it has made it through two deletion nominations in the past, with this being its 3rd. 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. You enjoy it, that's great. You do you, but it shouldn't have its own page just because you like it. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 02:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should clarify, I am for voting for delete. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Doing a quick google search shows no reviews from any review aggregator, no reviews from IGN nor any other big game reviewer. Lack of notability aswell. Ray 04:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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. I can't believe it survived twice in the past with such weak sourcing. Sergecross73   msg me  03:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Quaemenelimbus ( 🗨 here ) ^_^ 01:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sufficient independent coverage to meet notability. It just reads like a summary. Does not discuss significance, reception, etc, and even if it did, there's no independent sources at all for it.


 * Delete. I took a look at Google Scholar to see if the game has been significant in scholarship on MMOGs as an early example. I did find a few references of it, but only about the cheating that happened in the game, which is discussed in the postmortem and is also referenced in the Wikipedia page Cheating in video games. The scholarship is all in Russian, but that's OK according to WP:NONENG. The scholarly coverage might make the cheating in the game notable, but not the game itself. Probably the coverage in Cheating in video games is sufficient. Lijil (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2022 (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.