Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal Line Blitz

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goal Line Blitz

Has no assertion of notability. Has been speedied before. seresin (public computer) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure I've come across a notablilty guideline for RPGs. But this one looks like it fails it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I deleted this once as a G4 (recreation), but I did find at least one review of it (in a game site I've never heard of), and Google suggests that it's a popular forum topic. My take is that it has borderline notability at the moment, but is likely to become increasingly notable. I usually lean toward "keep" if the notability is borderline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable notability yet. Mukadderat (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I find lots of ghits but, none which appear to be from reliable 3rd party sources (mostly being blogs/forums). Possibly nearly notable but, notability needs to be verifiable through reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Goalline Blitz is in a similar position to that of Hattrick when that game first had a Wikipedia entry created. Obviously they are on two different levels today, but Hattrick's usage in 2003 was similar in number to GLB's today. That said, I would also support deletion under "Will it stand the test of time" thinking. JeffHCross (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, your argument for keeping the article is that it is similar to the state of another article in its early stages, and that article became notable, so this one will too? I'm not seeing it. seresin (public computer) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is one thing that Goalline Blitz has going for it. If you type in "american football mmorpg" in google, it's the only thing that pops out. Now certainly this "first american football mmorpg" status isn't third-party certifiable, but that is somewhat notable. Clearly, the article itself is poor, but I think we would do well to give a little bit more time. Kinglehr (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, It is a very popular game that is just getting larger and larger. More and more people are going to want to know about it. This is a must keep.--Flete17 (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only if the page is rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonicangel82 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see how a game with over 150,000 players is not notable.--IU2002 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial return on google search, sizable and growing population. Notable links per ohnoitsjamie. Comparison to Hattrick by JeffHCross is relevant - this article's subject is now the second largest massively online sport simulator after Hattrick. Othercrapexists isn't a reason to delete as the excellent meaning of that essay has been horribly corrupted to mean comparisons are never valid but comparing No 1 and No 2 in a genre surely is a relevant and valid comparitor. MLA (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The numbers/size make it notable, there's quite a few games with much smaller player bases listed on Wikipedia. Also,MPOGD did a review of it as well. Even if it's borderline, it's trending up. Warhawk137 (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I had recommended this article for deletion/speedy deletion before, when it was essentially an ad. But it has improved a lot and a game with 150k people definitely deserves to be kept if it follows WP:NPOV. NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2008 (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.