Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block N Load (video game)

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block N Load (video game)

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

Not released yet - doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON at best. I prodded with those reasons, removed by Shadowen78 with the reason: 'The game exists and is available to pre-order on Steam (which ends on 12th Feb 2015 - this may be the release date but I have nothing to confirm that). The game is also in Open Beta where anyone can signup to play it.' Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~WP:ORG is totally irrelevant, we're talking about a game here.~~ The game is clearly passing GNG, look at [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], etc. Being a first foray for Jagex, whom are extremely notable thanks to RuneScape, into a new genre for them is also pretty noteworthy, and is alluded to in some of those sources. These days, there are so many games coming out on Steam that this level of coverage is certainly not routine, and many of these are quite in-depth pieces. The article is terrible, but that's the only issue here bar a failure of WP:BEFORE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Products come under WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Boleyn, you are correct and I've stricken that part of my comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of the content in the article was copied from various sources. I have removed any instances of copyvios I could track down. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs expansion (especially after clearing copyvios), but there is enough coverage to warrant an article and meet notability (covergae including Kotaku, PCWorld, GameSpot, and a variety of smaller gaming sites). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:50, 3 January 2015 (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.