Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockland (2nd nomination)


 * 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: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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. Jeremjay 24  ''' 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  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 &#124; Talk 23:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be snowballed. Jeremjay  24  ''' 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 tag on for a while, and the situation hasn't improved I'm afraid.-- Gordonrox24  &#124; Talk 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 &#124; Happy Holidays! 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.