Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.BLP


 * 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 (NAC) Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

.BLP

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment At least there's no violation of WP:BLP Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - File format used by a major game. There was a tech spec on the file, but the site is gone. I found a copy on Archive.org here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per CyberSkull, no WP:BLP issues to be seen here. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge into appropriate article, as this is an important file format used by popular game(s), created by a very notable company. Rilak (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Unless there are second party source to assert that this is a file type of note it has to go. Being created by a notable company is not a valid criteria for notability. Notablility is rarely inherited. -- neon white user page talk 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not a big fan of technical components of notable things having their own articles. Suppose we gave all components of all turbofan engines articles... User:Krator (t c) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge into an appropriate Blizzard-related article. Considering the MDX article recently created, we could make an all-new article about file extentions used in Blizzard games. Fusion  Mix  23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a compromise can be reached through a merge of this article along with others of similar nature as one editor has suggested? (Why didn't I think of that???) Rilak (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion for the other article, which is related to this one, is here. It hasn't been whacked yet. Fusion  Mix  23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into MPQ as per that article's AfD
 * Keep, WP:N is not a policy and this article provides background information on Blizzard game design. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This particular version of the article or the topic itself? --Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your right! It isn't clean up, its deletion for articles that do not demonstrate notability. And unless references are added to the article to demonstrate that, it hasn't been demonstrated and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have to say I don't see any real evidence of notability here. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - WoW (and previously Warcraft 3) has a pretty active modification scene. One of the major ways modders work is by modifying game textures.  To the people who support that scene by creating tools (such as my BLPConverter, has 10,000 downloads from it's primary site), this article is incredibly useful.  Beyond my word, though, "evidence" might be hard to come by.  Blizzard frowns on people modifying their game and thus modding sites try to keep a low profile. Wwdandelion (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (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.