Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLOX City


 * 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

BLOX City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly NN product from a NN company. Plenty of connected sources can be found but no in-depth third-party coverage. Looks like a publicity piece from connected contributors. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * BLOX City Article writer's point of view: (Apologies if I'm doing this wrong, this is my first time discussing my POV in an Articles of Deletion page.) There is little third-party sourcing due to the website is not sponsored or merely recognized by any other website. The article was originally deleted for several reasons. I saw that it had been deleted and I had revived the article. As connected contributing goes, I've only told people about the article on BLOX City's Forums (http://www.bloxcity.com/forums) and a few minutes ago I posted on the website's owner's live stream. Which he did indeed view. Every section on the article was created by me over a span of 2 or 3 days I believe. Other users on BLOX City's Forums have fixed spelling errors and one re-worded a paragraph. I just don't see why the person marked it so early, it had been only (estimated) an hour and it was marked for speedy deletion. Thanks for reading this, tell me if you need more information. Pastorma (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Newly created articles that do not meet the general requirements for Wikipedia tend to be discovered and nominated for deletion quickly. I recommend submitting the article for Articles for Creation for a better chance of getting the article approved, and going to The Teahouse or the Help Desk for general editing assistance. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG, not a single hit on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not Notable. There is no reliable sources covering the product and it fails WP:GNG. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete sources are required to be independent to prove notability, and unfortunately there do not appear to be any independent sources at this time (the official website does not count as an independent source). If the game gains more exposure and coverage in independent sources then this article could be recreated. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't understand why the speedy deletion tag wasn't just restored. This is open and shut. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per . Fails WP:GNG and should have been re-tagged for CSD.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  Update . This article recently gained a secondary source due to my work, which makes it able to be re-evaluated for WP:GNG 76.218.105.99 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread WP:RS and WP:N - the article still has no refs which meet the standard of independent significant coverage - user-editable sites such as bloxcity.wikia.com/ are not considered RS, and a single independent ref is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Update 2 . I have again tried to improve this article. I added an infobox w/ logo and details, categorized it, added one independent ref, restructured, gave more info, added references to many things to clean up the article. I think that this article is much more clean now, but it still needs some more independent refs. I'd suggest postponing the deletion of this article as I clean it up some more and find independent sources 76.218.105.99 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly too soon, nothing else convincing especially given it's newly founded. SwisterTwister   talk  06:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Roscelese. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pastorma. 76.218.105.99 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2016 (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.