Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABECRAFT

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ABECRAFT

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

Currently unreferenced article about a short lived Minecraft server. No indication of notability, and possibly promoting its possible reopening. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement (and a story in places). Name calling in article (not a neutral point of view). No sources cited. Good candidate for deletion Joshua Walton (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic writing could be fixed, but without reliable secondary sources it does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the GNG. Non-notable journal like documenting of some random people's antics with Minecraft stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per basically A7 -- non-notable entity, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy basic WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can - it's had a prod already. That's why it's at AfD now. This way, if it comes back we can use G4. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any reliable sources out there to satisfy WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it's a dramatic story. No indication of notability. George8211 ^{conversations} 19:51, 4 November 2013 (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.