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. JForget 03:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freebuild[edit]

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)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod, concern was: nn software that has been out for less than a week, the author of the article is the creator of the article, completely unreferenced Terrillja _talk 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game has been out for over a week, I have added a reference (really, what references do you need for such little information?). Sure, I creted the article. So? I will shortly have people editing the page as we have been discussing having a wikipedia page for some time. Also, what's wrong with asking people to add onto the article? :CyberPrime

The article states that it was released on new years day, 2010. So 7-9 days depending on where you live. And as for references, see WP:RS. Things like newspaper articles, a review on CNET, things like that are a good start at showing notability.--Terrillja _talk 06:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give us some time, Jesus Christ! 71.230.67.178 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no WP:Reliable references to this article which indicates a lack of notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. All of the existing references are blog posts written by developers of the software, or forums. - Ephialtes42 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Yet Don't be a dick, the article was literally just created, and the game has yet to be featured in any publication(which would use information from our forums and garage games anyway). Give it time to develop, like any Wikipedia article. 71.230.67.178 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)— 71.230.67.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia articles have time to develop once they meet the minimum threshold of notability. Once the game has been in publications, we can recreate it, but it does not meet the guidelines at this time.--Terrillja _talk 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 17:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability comes first, then the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article does not create, nor does it wait for, notability. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have noted, notability first. I would also add that the coverage of a game (press, previews, reviews) tends to be before release, building to a head in the weeks before and tailing off quickly after. If the game has been out for a week and is not yet notable it probably never will be. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree as per Joe Chill et. al., no significant coverage. Allynfolksjr (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Be A Dick: It hasn't been released yet, and has been featured on multiple sites(both by the developers, and by opponents), albeit not on a front page article or anything, but it's still been there nonetheless. Give it TIME. Once LDraw has been implemented, it WILL be featured on their website, so why put everybody through the work of recreating the article when you can just leave it alone for now, and get rid of it if the subject indeed remains obscure. Ah, I found a third-party article on The Better Mod, and added it. Seeing as this is a direct descendant of The Better Mod, and would likely be merged with The Better Mod's article if it existed, I consider this a valid, if not popular, source. 71.230.67.178 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)— 71.230.67.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nobody's tring to "be a dick" here, we're just following the criteria for new Wikipedia articles. As has been mentioned many times by many editors, a Wikipedia article does not wait for notability. I checked out your reference you added but it doesn't seem to mention the game at all, it talks briefly about a mod for a game called Blockland and as far as I can tell, this is an article for a game. -- Ephialtes42 (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, and "Do not be a dick" is an argument not best to be used twice by the same editor in the same discussion... Doc9871 (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you are being dicks. The article was JUST CREATED and you're already fighting to delete it. Just because it wasn't a headliner on Larry King Live or anything doesn't mean it isn't worthy of it's pissant little piece of cyberspace. Sources were cited, from various sides, and another third-party site(yes, it mentions only TBM, which this game is based on, which is mentioned in this article), so fuck off and leave us alone. I'm getting tired of this. 71.230.67.178 (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)— 71.230.67.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Well said. I think you just made your case... Doc9871 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, the article itself and the results of a web search do not demonstrate notability through multiple, in-depth, reliable sources. In plain English all WP articles should be on subjects which are themselves covered by appropriate sources, we can't generate original research here, we have to use what others have written to form the basis of articles. Although the gaming press is a lot more open minded these days we are still at the mercy of what these second parties choose to cover. While it's unpleasant to have something you've worked on or intended to work on nominated for deletion, not doing so would just waste more time in the long-run because all of the additional edits would be lost should it be nominated at a later point. Since building games of this type are spreading in number and recognition the sourcing situation may change in the future, but until that point there is no basis for an article, sorry. Someone another 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- No notablity found, no reliable sources and the overall immaturity of some posters makes this an easy speedy. --Teancum (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude - how does editor behaviour figure into the current and potential merits of the article? If poor behaviour spoke against a position, we could never get any policies made. Besides, it seems that some people here are frustrated because we're destroying their earnest volunteer work, which is unavoidable even when we must do so. Some people here also think that they haven't been given a fair shot, which is understandable: I don't think they've received more explanation than tags and acronyms. You know how callous and high-handed our thicket-o'-rules and their application can be/seem (take your pick). It's a pity that some people here are flaming, but it really can't be held against them.

Now. Leaving aside notability, which is a semi-arbitrary worthiness criterion and which I hate from my petty little heart, there is a more fundamental problem with verifiability, one of the cornerstones of the site (an end, where N is a means). Basically the word of an open wiki isn't worth much. Articles need to be able to address at least one question: "Says who?" This is not a small matter. Check out the scam attempts that followed the Boxing Day tsunami. Better yet, don't. Another thing is that without a third party to rely on, article content is entirely a matter of opinion, and likely to be decided by editors screaming and flinging poo at each other. There are articles where this wouldn't happen, there are ones where it would, but crucially, we have no way of drawing the line. So N or no N, I don't think that Freebuild can currently work in this system of building an encyclopedia. But if anyone wants a copy of the article after it's deleted, drop a note on my talk page or that of most other admins. Hope that helps. --Kiz o r 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for getting pissed, and thank you for taking my lack of maturity surprisingly well. I just think, given that it is gathering sources(some of which could be argued are verifiable, and vice versa) it should be allowed to continue gathering sources. I see plenty of articles tagged with problems regarding sources, or point of view, or things as silly as an excess of red links. You don't see them up for deletion right away. They get time to improve and fix those problems before such a decision is made. 71.230.67.178 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In cases such as those, the issue is more with poor sourcing or formatting - both of which can be improved upon. However with this article, nobody has been able to find any WP:Verifiable sources for the subject of the article. This is the main reason for the AfD and until the game actually gets some third party coverage there won't be any way to source it better. Like User:Kizor said, the article can be copied to your talk page so that it can be moved back when better sourcing can be found. -- Ephialtes42 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just Archive the page untill the game is at least Alpha or Beta and gets in gamespot magazine or something, i've been waiting for this since I like most people do not have access to payment methods (or available funds due to hospital and utility bills) to purchase the "similar" game people think this game is stealing from *cough*Blockland*cough* 71.171.206.146 (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something you want to preserve, you can always userfy the article to you (or another editor) if you have an account. The article is moved to a sub-page of a user page, so that user can continue to expand and update it until such time that it's notable and ready for inclusion into Wikipedia. --Teancum (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2010 (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.