| Revision as of 02:23, 23 December 2009 editGordonrox24 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,521 edits →Blockland: cmnt← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:24, 23 December 2009 edit undoJBsupreme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers30,453 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| **You're right Ephi, this doesn't have ] of getting deleted, given new refs and notability established, so this discussion is pretty much pointless. ] (]) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | **You're right Ephi, this doesn't have ] of getting deleted, given new refs and notability established, so this discussion is pretty much pointless. ] (]) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :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) | |||
Revision as of 08:24, 23 December 2009
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)