Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glowstone

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glowstone

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

Contested PROD. This seems to fail the notability guidelines for fiction. Cutecutecuteface2000 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really is not much to say here. Completely forgettable detail of a computer game. --Crusio (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 18:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional element of a video game. No out-of-universe coverage by reliable sources. Additional note: The article was already proposed for deletion and probably would have been deleted in about two days if you'd just let it sit. Keep an eye out for that in the future. Reach Out to the Truth 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale, which the others have also mentioned above. –MuZemike 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability independent of that of Minecraft, and insufficient content to justify a spin-out from the main Minecraft article(s). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DustFormsWords summed up my thoughts. I'm not finding coverage for the subject in reliable sources to warrant an individual article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable unsourced. Even within the scope of the Minecraft article it might not be notable enough by itself to warrant inclusion. Salvidrim (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2011 (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.