Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Lands

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 Keep (non-admin closure), notabily established. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Lands[edit]

Non-notable personal project. The article establishes no notability apart from a single page at About.com; this does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by the WP:N guidelines. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition there's a GameZone interview and this piece from a journo who's work has been in print (according to the writer bio) on a site called Massively.com, a new one on me. It seems we finally have an MMO-focused site which has a stab at passing our reliability standards. Where the frigging hell have these guys been for the past X years? The yawning gap in reliable coverage of MMOs has been there for years. Anyways, I think the substantial piece on Massively clinches the deal. Someoneanother 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Massively.com is a blog. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Significant coverage is a subjective term in making notability judgments. The two articles mentioned certainly establish the existence of critical responses to the game, and hence established the needed notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note — There is certainly no lack of established notability, especially when print reviews are included, such as the one appearing in the Feb. 06 issue of LinuxFormat. As a former contributor I wouldn't have considered it notable in its own right, however, the amount of coverage it receives for native linux games gives it weight above its fanbase of only 1500 to 2000 unique players online daily (which is still 5x that of Planeshift). I am also somewhat confused by the wording of the deletion summary - Eternal Lands is described as a 'personal project', despite the fact that it is listed as having 30 programmers who have made significant contributions to the code base. I won't vote, however, to remain objective despite my bias as a former contributor. 142.177.235.80 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm altering my objective note to a vote to keep this article - while I won't comment on notability, it seems due process was not followed, as no notability tag was ever attached to the article before requesting deletion. I'd prefer suitable time was allowed for proof of notability to be established in the article, as suggested by the linked WP:N than to hurriedly collect proof due to the nomination for deletion. 142.177.235.80 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly has established that it is notable. Mathmo ^Talk 05:33, 17 July 2008 (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.