Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternity (game)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, author requests deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eternity (game)[edit]
A free game thats currently in development, it doesn't get less notable really. Zero assertions of notability, no reliable third-party sources, no media coverage, fails WP:NOT a crystalball, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, WP:N, and the first section reads like an advertisement (WP:NOT again). The introduction even says they don't know what the game is going to be notable for yet! (They say 'probably it's license') The Kinslayer 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as in-development hobby project. — brighterorange (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ← ANAS Talk? 16:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs clean up, not deletion. WP:NOTCVG is still just a proposal, not policy, notability is difficult for FOSS game projects. In regards to reading like an ad, there are a lot of game articles that read like an ad, Freelancer is a prime example. --MegaBurn 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no idea where you keep getting WP:NOTCVG from. No one else is referencing it. We're more concerned about the ACTUAL policies this article doesn't meet, as stated in the nomination. The Kinslayer 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Its the proposed notability policy for games, until its finalized notability should be left out of game related AFD debates. WP:SOFTWARE is also just a proposal, not policy, and should not be used for a AFD grounds either. Beyond that, this is a game under development, weak notability should be expected. --MegaBurn 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know it's a proposed policy, so does everyone else. That's why absolutely no-one else has made any reference to it and is instead sticking to the actual Wiki policies this article fails. I ask you again: Where are you getting WP:NOTCVG from when absolutely no-one is using it as a reason for deletion? The Kinslayer 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Its the proposed notability policy for games, until its finalized notability should be left out of game related AFD debates. WP:SOFTWARE is also just a proposal, not policy, and should not be used for a AFD grounds either. Beyond that, this is a game under development, weak notability should be expected. --MegaBurn 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no idea where you keep getting WP:NOTCVG from. No one else is referencing it. We're more concerned about the ACTUAL policies this article doesn't meet, as stated in the nomination. The Kinslayer 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Megaburn, you are ignoring the parts about WP:V and WP:RS. No media coverage, no third-party sources, only the site itself listed as a source. This does not meet any standard of notability. WP is not for crystal ballery. Hbdragon88 05:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, sorry, it was a weak attempt to save the article. Its Openlancer's sister project so I felt obligated to say something to defend it. Odd though, out of about 200 community members no one else replied to this or the Openlancer AFD debates. I can say both articles will return in a few months, after these projects release demos and get some news coverage. --MegaBurn 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original nom which covers it very nicely. Nashville Monkey 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In order to comply with the above mentioned wikipedia policies, I the admin/webmaster/designer of the project and original author have adjusted the wording away from speculation to current goals. Advertisement is irrelevant, there are no argumentative devices, only facts. --Casswp06 15:46, 9 December 2006 (GMT)
- Delete I author have decided there is no real point to keeping this entry, it isn't important and has no bearing on how the project will do. I hereby request it's deleted now as to not waste any more of anyone's time. --Casswp06 22:48, 11 December 2006 (AEST)
- 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.