Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Uncensored Library


 * 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 09:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The Uncensored Library

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS, there's no evidence of enduring coverage yet. Fails WP:GNG as well. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: It can't have enduring coverage yet if it was announced yesterday. It's getting news coverage and is clearly notable. We can judge if it gets sustained coverage over time; if it fades from public notice, we can delete it later. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Beyond the dedicated coverage in a few video game/tech websites, the fact that it’s getting coverage from National publication unrelated to gaming, like CNN, shows that it does meet the WP:GNG. And this is coming from someone who typically advocated delete for these various Minecraft related things, as I believe most are not independently notable. This ones coverage is different though. Sergecross73   msg me  13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS, a brief Minecraft related gimmick isn't notable. Many organizations have done this type of thing, such as the Danish government with their recreation of Denmark in Minecraft. The Minecraft uncensored library map is something that'll get plenty of coverage over a period of a few days, then will be forgotten about. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's WP:CRYSTAL, a prediction that may or may not come true. We'll see if you're right in time. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We’re not talking about a news event though, we’re talking about a game that was created. There’s a difference, much in the same way that we wouldn’t delete an album article per “NOTNEWS” just because all the album reviews arose within the first few days of release. Sergecross73   msg me  03:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG, in addition to CNN mentioned above it has been covered by others including La Vanguardia - "Esta gigantesca biblioteca de Minecraft contiene cientos de trabajos periodísticos censurados", and Deutsche Welle - "Kompjutorskom igrom zaobilaze cenzuru na Internetu". Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary, it doesn't need "lasting coverage". If it meets the general notability guidelines now, then it should be kept forever.   D r e a m Focus  16:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep We have before us an article that has gotten a lot of international press for several days but for which WP:SUSTAINED has not been met. The amount of coverage is far above the trifling coverage typical of articles deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, but much less than articles typically kept per WP:RAPID. For the time being, I'm voting keep because of the international coverage and the breadth of coverage of the library. However, if the coverage dies down and it becomes apparent that the library was little more than a novelty, then I think a re-nomination would be appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG with solid coverage from multiple journalistic perspectives.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:15, 20 March 2020 (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.