Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden World Builder

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. v/r - T P 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eden World Builder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail notability. A search of Google News for "Eden World Builder" only brings up 2 hits, both of which are trivial passing mentions. There may be other sources but I haven't found them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contains enough information to see what the article is, and is quite a popular game at the moment, in the top 100 at the app store.

sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely referenced from the creator's website, no evidence of coverage by notable gaming outlets, no evidence of general notability, metacritic shows 0 reviews by notable professional reviewers. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently referenced from the website of the game's creator and from shallow reviews on websites that appear to have little to no editorial oversight. I'm unable to find coverage of sufficient depth and in sufficiently reliable sources to correct that state of affairs. Pichpich (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I play it but this is not a very important game. Routelegs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Routelegs (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability isn't asserted in the article. I couldn't find reliable sources that suggest notability. Colon el Tom 20:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete There are a couple of apparently third-party reviews in the reflist, but I'm not convinced that they meet WP:RS - the IOS review is on a site that accepts user-generated content, the iGamePros review appears to be a forum post, and The Appera looks very much like a communal blog. All seem to fail WP:USERG. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is important but is not well written. Someone needs to rewrite it. By no means should it be deleted. Cin316 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)— User:Cin316 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Cin316, simply stating that the article is important isn't sufficient. It has to be shown to be important - that is to say, the notability of the game must be shown. The above suggestions that the article be deleted are all based on a lack of evidence of notability. If you want to keep the article, you need to convince the community that it meets WP:GNG. Some ~~good~~ detailed coverage of the game in reliable sources would suffice, I suspect. I looked for that coverage before I commented above, and I couldn't find any - which is why I think it should be removed from wikipedia. Colon el Tom 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. Has a few reviews out there, but none from reliable video game reviewers. I don't really know the reliability of these such as [1] or [2], but they don't seem to be of high editorial oversight. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:31, 6 December 2011 (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.