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 No Consensus Default to KEEP Too much of this discussion is on the fence. Article needs improvement, not deletion Mike Cline (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roblox[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

They have not done anything, accolades, awards, charted, scandals, third party recognitions... et cetera. The sources are mostly not reliable in the way that they are not third party, known for fact checking, and so on. The article is also written like an advertisement. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Myself and another contributor to this article User:Briguy9876 are volunteer forum moderators for this website. We are not representatives of this game in any way shape or form, nor are we allowed to represent them anywhere off of the roblox website. I think I've already given that little spiel on my talk page before, but wanted to get that out of the way asap. At the end of the deletion review it was decided that the article would be restored and would be open to another AFD whenever somebody felt like tagging it. I was and am fine with the outcome of that discussion. I wish I could go through the article and wipe most of it out, as I am not of a fan of all the "references" that link back to the roblox website, however as far as I am aware those type of "references" can be used to prove that a feature exists. These links however don't establish notability, and I feel they should be used sparingly, definitely not in the large amount found in this article. I am going to probably be making major changes to the article in the coming days, but will not voice much of an opinion here until I read other editors arguments. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Not only have we very recently entered a promotional agreement with the Disney Channel, but we have reached over 7 million registered user accounts. We also have over 30,000 users online concurrently every day during peak hours. Additionally, Compete places us with more than half a million unique visitors per month. Alexa places us at the 5,468th most visited website on the ranked internet. Around 10% of our traffic comes from search engines. I'd like to think that these such statistics would denote that Roblox is in fact existent and worthy of a few kilobytes of a page on Wikipedia; but I have been quite inactive on this site for quite some time. The rules seem to have changed. I would agree that the page itself is in need of some rewriting, and if I wasn't preoccupied with getting our own WikiMedia installation functioning smoothly I would take the time to do so. I don't think that a poorly written page should be removed simply because it isn't immediately referencing reliable sources or, in the editor's fine opinion, "written like an advertisement".---Mr Doom Bringer (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much poorly written, but more so the fact that reliable sources can't be found to support your above claims. All the statistics you just quoted are your own original research. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, Alexa Internet was a fairly reliable resource, what being around for 14 years and operated by Amazon and all. I could be wrong about that, so I'll just continue that as a comment. I'm simply stating these facts as references to our website's traffic, which is far greater than that of other websites that exist here. I can see how it needs more reliable sources for references. The root reason for deletion was for "not done anything, accolades, awards, charted, scandals, third party recognitions... et cetera." I fail to see how a scandal is worthy of a Wikipedia page, and it's not clear what you mean by "awards, accolades and charted." Third party recognitions are the only reasonable thing I see missing from the page, and agree with you on. Could you please make it more clear what exactly you are asking for on the page, aside from reliable sources? ---Mr Doom Bringer (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MrDoomBringer, the person you're talking to, is one of the volunteer managers of the Roblox websites. That means he doesn't need references because he has all the references in his domain statistics list. Jeremjay 24 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4,090,000 google hits, 8,470 youtube videos and over 2 million accounts. This article is NOT an advertisement, or even close to one thank you. Although ROBLOX is currently offline right now. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.210.122 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those statistics are original research by yourself. We use reliable sources to verify notability. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will also note that as this article has fairly high traffic (being accessed 10548 times in February we will probably end up with many Single purpose accounts voicing an opinion here, as roblox users will see the page and come here more than likely screaming for keep. Not a desirable thing, maybe we could semi-protect the discussion if that begins to happen. In the time that this article has been in the mainspace I've learned that it is a strange topic, as when you go to look for sources the results you get in google are misleading. Most of the hits that come up are from the roblox site, or are roblox fan forums.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant independent coverage. Routine entries in BusinessWeek and product reviews in mmohut, which has been rejected as a WP:VG/RS is all that supports this article. The rest are obscure blog entries and press releases. Pcap ping 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ROBLOX is the #1 kids site in terms of engagement according to comscore and has millions of unique users. Let's not get crazy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shedletsky (talk • contribs) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has exactly 17 reliable references. Roblox has been viewed 2800 times in 201003. The game also has way over 6 million (with SIX zeros) users with approximately 10 more people joining every minute. That's not very bad. Also, Roblox has been talked about on the press. I think that is way over the requirements for the Wikipedian video game article requirements. P.S. o hai telamon. Jeremjay 24 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page contains a plentiful amount of sources that has backed up facts about ROBLOX from people who actually played the game and are eligble to edit the page and add facts. People who edit the page(not counting people who vandalize) know what facts to add, when to add them, and knows how to seperate facts from opinions, and correct facts from incorrect facts. The page is fine and doesn't need to be deleted. --ANormalUsername1 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, the article should be rewritten. Although, it has in 2009, at least done 3 important and big things that make it desirable for being an article.

One of which is Donating to Haiti [1] Securing 2.2 million in funds [2] and lastly, partnering with Rixty to buy their virtual currency and one of the builder's club which gives you extra features [3]. I believe this is reliable enough. Also, I am not related to ROBLOX at all, besides in being a user, called Foxcow. Monkey Fox Contributes! . 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - full of primary sources, with only a few third-party sources. Those sources are either not reliable or do not provide significant coverage on the topic. Also, please note the off site canvassing occurring. --Teancum (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the exact reason I suggested a semi-protect if that started happening. In most cases people brought over via those methods don't have a real understanding of what Wikipedia's policies are, and the closing admin will probably disregard those comments.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. There are 17 third party references, which is half of the amount of references. Not that bad. Just around 5 of them are stupid references, and the rest of them are news posts, which isn't "harmful" in any way. Jeremjay 24 21:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's look at those sources then (as of the post-date above). Listo is a simple blurb and user reviews, MMOhut is considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS, KidsLike looks to be a register-and-post-info site, The Examiner is simply a blog-based site as well (see Examiner.com) and was blocked by a filter trying to post this message, TRUSTe is definitely reliable, but would need other sources to establish notability, as all that site tells us is that the game is safe for kids, the Better Business Bureau like shows nothing more than a rating and basic info so it falls under the same category as TRUSTe, BusinessWeek also falls under that category. The prior two also focus on the company and not the game itself. VentureBeat seems reliable, but the post itself is small. It could be used to cite what it already is, but couldn't hold up the whole article. Same way with The Washington Post. Two great sources, but they only source that one small fact. Earthtimes is a press release. The MidWeek article is from a published source, but seems to be from a local Hawaiian newspaper - could be used as a secondary source if something larger covered the article I suppose. Free Online Games is nothing more than a repository of files with basic info - it offers no significant coverage, besides the fact that it isn't reliable. Make Use Of offers significant coverage, but I couldn't find anything on its reliability as a source. Another editor will need to take a look at it. Great Games Experiment is user-supported, rather than being a published source. ONrpg is ambiguous as to whether it is a published source. The review is laid out in the "pro" manner, but there is no info about the staff, something that throws up a red flag. [www.commonsensemedia.org Common Sense Media] seems to be used as a source in a handful of articles here, but the reviewer seems to be a freelance writer. Not a problem in and of itself unless the site is largely published by "freelance writers". Now, that being said I'd like other editors to take a look at these sites and get a better consensus. --Teancum (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tean, I said that there were 17 references. Now the #1 free MMORPG RuneScape has less than 40 reliable 3rd party references with the rest of them being news posts. Now yeah, again we have 17 sources, but comparing that number to 40 by RuneScape is a great comparison for Roblox having 1/10 of RuneScape. And I bet the contributors over there are active Wikipedians. Jeremjay 24 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. Notability is established on an article-by-article basis. --Teancum (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tean, I will add third party sources in a few hours. Also, for the off site things, most of the people who are posting here because of it, aren't putting up a good argument.

And some would of noticed it anyway, by just quickly looking at the article for some quick info about something. 76.110.112.159 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Sources:[reply]

Yup. That only took 5 minutes. Jeremjay

The first two sources cover a very small part of what would establish notability for the article, the third is a press release. --Teancum (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it only took five minutes. At that rate, I could get 36 references in an hour. Not very bad. Jeremjay 24 23:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why you should keep digging. If the sources are there, I'm all for keeping the article, but if they don't pass WP:RS and WP:N you could find 100 sources. All I'm saying is that if you want to save it, find the sources and source the article. --Teancum (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a roblox user myself and know one is tryign to advertize!!! roblox is a onlien game the article jsut needs a good wrighter to edit it--Mathepa 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you like the game doesn't mean that you should vote to keep it. Wikipedia articles are kept for the reason of reliability. Jeremjay 24 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE) AfD semiprotected due to offsite canvassing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Offsite canvassing. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually came here with a slight bias towards keeping, but there really is a complete lack of reliable, independent secondary sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references are good enough to establish notability; article reads a lot better now it has been cleaned up. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. TN X Man 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The Washington Post article is getting in the right direction. The sources seem to just barely push above the edge of notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take note that User:Orangemike has removed the Washington post referece.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being on the Post website, it was actually a press release, not an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, The roblox article actually passes the first criteria of WP:WEB. There are now (or soon) Robux (virtual currency) redeeming cards sold at 7-Eleven, Robux and Builders Club (Premium membership) sold via Rixty on Coinstar machines. Jeremjay 24 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that doesn't have anything at all to do with "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it also passes the 2nd. I believe an A rating on the Better Business Bureau would go under "well-known and independent award". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfox (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; that's nowhere remotely near being an award; it's just a rating by a commercial service. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It may be messy, and unorganized, but that's why you need to correct the dumb 7 year old's anonymous mistakes. If this is keeped, we need to fix it. Relorelo84 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This may be offtopic, but User:Gordonrox24 worked on the Roblox page before he became a mod. Since then, he made very minor edits like spelling, references, etc. Jeremjay 24 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The COI tag is still valid as most of the editors are either staff or users.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:49, 11 March 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.