| Revision as of 08:24, 23 December 2009 editJBsupreme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers30,453 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:06, 25 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''keep'''. ''']''' 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}} | |||
| <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockland}}</ul></div> | <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockland}}</ul></div> | ||
| :{{la|Blockland}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Misplaced Pages%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:Blockland}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | :{{la|Blockland}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd=Misplaced Pages%3AArticles+for+deletion%2F{{urlencode:Blockland}}|2=AfD statistics}}) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 14: | ||
| :I have added multiple references which prove the software's notability. ] (]) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | :I have added multiple references which prove the software's notability. ] (]) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| '''Strong Keep''' - Great amount of references for an article like this, and it has been featured on Shack News and The Screen Savers. ]] ''' 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | '''Strong Keep''' - Great amount of references for an article like this, and it has been featured on Shack News and The Screen Savers. ]] ''' 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ''''']]''''' 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ''''']]''''' 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' sourcing appears to meet GNG per last AfD. ] (]) 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' sourcing appears to meet GNG per last AfD. ] (]) 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 25: | ||
| :Agreed with Ephialtes42.--] | ] 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | :Agreed with Ephialtes42.--] | ] 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. I don't care if the article is edited by SPAs. They can generate new accounts to edit this article 'til their face(s) turns blue for all I care. The bottom line is this: can a decent article be made about the subject using neutral language, citing reliable third party sources? I think so. ] (]) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. I don't care if the article is edited by SPAs. They can generate new accounts to edit this article 'til their face(s) turns blue for all I care. The bottom line is this: can a decent article be made about the subject using neutral language, citing reliable third party sources? I think so. ] (]) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep'''. Given that the nominator hasn't furthered their argument since, and nobody has voted to delete - can this be closed now? ] (]) 13:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 21:06, 25 May 2022
- 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. Tone 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Blockland
AfDs for this article:- Blockland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product. All the "references" provided are either forums or download sites. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have added multiple references which prove the software's notability. Ephialtes42 (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Great amount of references for an article like this, and it has been featured on Shack News and The Screen Savers. Jeremjay24 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep sourcing appears to meet GNG per last AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think the Globe and Mail article establishes some notability. I do however thing the article needs help. Most of the editors are users of the game, and are single purpose accounts. This often makes for an article lacking neutrality.--Gordonrox24 | 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This should be snowballed. Jeremjay24 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources, especially Globe and Mail article, establish notability for Blockland. Also a comment: as Ephialtes is a Blockland scripter, he is a clear COI/SPA. Specs112 (Talk!) 01:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the active editors of that article are SPAs. I had a {{COI}} tag on for a while, and the situation hasn't improved I'm afraid.--Gordonrox24 | 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. While a lot of the editors are indeed SPAs, I don't think the article is so heavily biased that it warrants deletion, and is certainly not something that a little help from some experienced editors wouldn't rectify. Furthermore, to the best of my judgement I'd say the software was notable, as it's been written about in the Globe and Mail, on Shack News and had G4TV exposure. The original reason for deletion was poor references which has now been fixed - is there another outstanding issue keeping this nomination alive? Ephialtes42 (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're right Ephi, this doesn't have WP:SNOW of getting deleted, given new refs and notability established, so this discussion is pretty much pointless. Specs112 (Talk!) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed with Ephialtes42.--Gordonrox24 | 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't care if the article is edited by SPAs. They can generate new accounts to edit this article 'til their face(s) turns blue for all I care. The bottom line is this: can a decent article be made about the subject using neutral language, citing reliable third party sources? I think so. JBsupreme (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Given that the nominator hasn't furthered their argument since, and nobody has voted to delete - can this be closed now? Ephialtes42 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2009 (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.