Deletion of The 4th Coming (2nd nomination)

Comment: and salt per last discussion.  Nothing's changed.  If you want to keep it, post a link to a reputable, third-party site () that asserts that this is a truly notable game (as per ).  If it's not notable and it's not verifiably sourced, it's not a good entry for an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:GAMES)

Comment: I find the large number of hits to be persuasive, even if most are gaming sites.  Keeping  in mind I think we should assume Meodies' good faith
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS)

Comment: The more I look at some of these sources, the more I waver. There's this magazine article Sean K references below (though a date and page # would be nice). There's also these three sources form the first AfD: http://telechargement.journaldunet.com/fiche/4316/2/la_quatrieme_prophetie/index.html, http://www.extremia.org/gazette/20001104c-t4c.php3, http://www.mondespersistants.com/mmorpg/news/Quatrieme-Prophetie/9657/. The first source is from ''http://www.journaldunet.com/ le Journal du Net'', which seems to be a |reliable source. The next two are probably gaming fan sites, but the webhits and number of players (ordinarily bad means of establishing notability, but OK in uncertain cases like this) lead me to opine weak keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: For the same reasons I gave in the last AfD. All the current sources do is establish that the game exists, which is not under contention. Still nothing to establish any notability for the game. A lot of the references are to the main game site. It fails  and . As is so often the case, where are the multiple non-trivial independant media mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)