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. This article was nominated for deletion in good faith. However, besides a non applicable argument for deletion under CSD A7, nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland[edit]

Blockland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Looking at the references, I see two youtube videos, the game developers web site, two decent pages, and a thread on the Blockland Forum. Doesn't look notable to me. gordonrox24 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – after looking at Google News, it appears there has been enough coverage of the game to assert notability. TheAE talk/sign 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A google search only turns up 622,000 hit. A relativly small amount for a notable topic considering WP has 279,000,000, and competing game RuneScape reaches 17,700,000 hits. I see little evidence of notablility.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Woah. That is the biggest case of WP:GHITS I've ever seen. TheAE talk/sign 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that not true, as it is an online game, and you would expect to be able to find lots of info via google for a notable online topic.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a search on Google news gives us results on unrelated topics named Blockland.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply looking for a Google search result number isn't a good way to decide if something is notable. Try searching Google News Archives instead, and look at the articles given. I'm not saying it is 100%-no-doubt-about-it notable, but simply given "622,000 Ghits" (which is actually a lot) shouldn't be your only reason to delete. TheAE talk/sign 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC

Google hits aren't my reason to delete and I only took a look at the hits when you started talking about google. My reason to delete is lack of references and questionable notability.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I agree. I still see a weak keep here, though. TheAE talk/sign 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge to list - I'm not sure what American Eagle was looking at. Google News has no hits for this game. The Edge and ShackNews coverage is perhaps just enough to establish notability. Can they support a whole article? Marasmusine (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Now thats a good question.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to above – You searched Google News (which is current news), you need to search Google News Archives, which lists (though less than I thought at first) a few related articles to Blockland. For example, this article (Finnish text translated), this article, as well as others which seem more trivial. There are some, so weak keep for me. TheAE talk/sign 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment rushing out, but there do appear to be a few gnews hits that might be notable. Doing a search is a pain. [1]. Hobit [User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment': I am going to go through the article, and remove all the un-cited material and all the stuff with no references and see where we stand.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like to point out the coinicdental timing of this nomination for deletion compared to a recent action by a community-declared "rival" game, Roblox, in an attempt to gain more users, encouraged its members to spam websites, including Blockland, with referral links. This caused Hartman to filter "roblox.com" on the page to automatically ban the spammers. Due to the inmaturity of both communities, such a nomination for deletion is probably related. --ladios15:58, 23 April 2009
• Comment: Ladios, we need to assume good faith. ROBLOX has not told anybody to spam anything, and I have actually been removing links from roblox off of Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the nomination. The only thing I am going off of is lack of notability and references.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The references cited are shacknews.com, G4TV and Edge magazine - for a computer game I don't know how you could possibly get more authoritative. Blockland has been on television. It has been in a half dozen magazines. This whole thing is just the latest salvo in some retarded on-going fan-boy war from competing games. Grow up. --71.237.169.146 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)— 71.237.169.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment: Considering I have an account on Blockland, I fail to see how that is a reasonable thing to say.--gordonrox24 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD:A7, non-notable web content. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance". The article says "It was spotlighted on The Screen Savers...drastically increasing the user base overnight. Blockland has also been featured on Shack News." Doesn't that count as a credible claim of significance or importance? If not, then we have a very different opinion of what A7 means. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A7 doesn't apply to software. I've removed the speedy. --GedUK  22:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A7 is not for software.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Non trivial coverage by g4 (majority owned by Comcast) and Shacknews (owned by GameFly) is enough to satisfy WP:ORG. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I opened this AFD, The article has been expanded greatly, but in that expansion no new references have been added. All information without source or reference can and will be challenged and or removed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentiment I agree with. Fixing up an article to withstand an AFD is great. However, adding a bunch of unsourced material is not what that means. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for fixing articles, but if references cannot be found, it is a subtle hint that the topic is not notable.--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added another reference. There are clearly enough references to prove that this is notable. Ephialtes42 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)— Ephialtes42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: An A7 CSD tag was placed on the article by User:Stifle. User:Ged UK declined saying that the article is about software. When asked, he said people would probably disagree with his decision, but he is sticking to it. The question is are we dealing with blockland as a piece of software, or as a website. Web sites are eligible for A7, but Software is not.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blockland is a non-competitive multiplayer computer game built on the Torque Game Engine" Defiantly a piece of software. -- Tommeh6 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)— Tommeh6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then the article proceeds to talk about the forums on the website. I don't know. I think it is a piece of software.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland is a piece of software. Were not talking about an article for Blockland.us. --Tommeh6 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.