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. -Doc^g 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wc3 Banlist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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)).

Website is not notable number29^(Talk) 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Moved this comment from the top of the page. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) DO NOT DELETE This article is completely valid. How about discussing before throwing out random deletions of well informed articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikernum1 (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete, this piece of software doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources, so it fails Wikipedia's notability criterion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Tens of thousands of users use this software everyday. It is written under the GNU General Public License and if you view Banlist.nl forums, you will have +10000 users who can vouch for the software. User:spikernum1 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment w3banlist is not under the GPL licence.Esby 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, do you have sources to prove this? The number of people using a piece of software does not make it notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally non-notable. Creating editor seems to be confusing notability with popularity. Adrian M. H. 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as I've already done once today. No ascertation of notability, no reliable sources. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete It was speedy deleted earlier for being non-notable, and it is still non-notable. Acalamari 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1. When there is a DotA topic the banlist must be inlcuded. You can delete both but these two things just have to go hand in hand. 2. This tool is used by many thousands. 3. Why are their no reiable sources ? if it is necesarry we can show you some prove how much the banlist is used (but i think your decision is already made; sad but probaby true) 4. btw why do you just delete the topics and don't propper notify the creators? kinda strange. - - - . 5.Maybe we can solve this - if you don't see our point - by moving our hard work to the DotA Allstars Topic and get a section there(in the german version there already is such a section as far as i know) (User:Georgschm)* — Georgschm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You need to have reliable sources to show how the banlist are notable, reliable sources are things such as newspaper articles. (Read the two blue links I've give you to show what I mean). Ryan Postlethwaite 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about point 5 ? I will seach for any of such reliable prove
• Speedy delete it's been deleted before, and nothing's changed since then. JeffyP 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As "DotA" seems so fulfill that requirements Banlist should fulfill it, too... I guess you can ask most persons regarding DotA that you would call "reliable": The wc3banlist is one of the usually used tools in the Battle.net and got downloaded already 1442237 times... What do you suggest to do to prove the reliability of that tool/community? Antragon — Antragon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • What constitutes reliable sources on Wikipedia is defined here. And bringing up the fact that Defense of the Ancients has an article is not a reason to have an article on this piece of software. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trying to discuss with people only interested in reliability is futile.
  Wc3banlist is obviously failing the wikipedia criterii. If the goal of such article is to inform potentials users, then banlist.nl is already doing this job, no need to waste time and resources here in an futile encyclopedic sourced quest.
  Wikipedia goals after all are not to inform and give useful information to people (and potential users), those are to have reliable and sourced articles with the direct consequence that what do not fit theses criterii do not exist.
  Anyway, the only 'keep' supporters are members of the banlist community, so this poll is biased Esby 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Are these pages of other anti-cheat tools notable? Choac DMW Anticheat GameGuard Valve Anti-Cheat. Is the information provided there much more reliable than it is in this article? Deflator 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC) — Deflator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep good point from Deflator and your still not going into my suggestion at any point to get a section at the thread like it is in the german version. If you have your rules - and i respcet that - then it must apply to all and all equal. And please some Mods or what you call yourselfe here seem to help us and that is very kind of you. But others just throw in the rulez in a not helping and maybe even rude way. Georgschm — Georgschm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Neutral If it would be ok to have some information included in the dota-article itself with links to extern information-pages, it might be ok to delete that article here... Antragon

• Keep How is Messenger_Plus! (which contains a Wikipedia article) any different than Wc3Banlist? It is a tool used to improve MSN Messenger. Banlist is a tool to improve Wc3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikernum1 (talk • contribs)
  • Your vote doesn't count twice. Also see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; just because other software have articles doesn't means yours is worthy of one. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like WP:OR to me, I can't find any reliable sources, so it fails WP:V, also I think this falls under WP:NOT. As currently written, it also clearly fails WP:NPOV. The only major policy it fails to violate is WP:BLP. Studerby 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as game instructions and as OR. DGG 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Banlist helps alot around Battle.Net. It is notable to be on Wikipedia. —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 20:26, 2-June, 2007 year (UTC).
  • Then show how it meets Wikipedia:Notability, because I still don't see it. Something being useful is not a reason it should have an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why no? We used to have it on DotA Allstars page, but it was deleted because of "clean-up". I can understand that wasting space in external links is not good. But why instead not create article for it? —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 21:31, 3-June, 2007 year (UTC).
      • Because something that may be useful doesn't always meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources about this piece of software. no notability, no article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Imo, the main problem is that the notability criteria. If you play custom games on battle.net, or are related to it, it will be not difficult to have never heard of banlist, if you are not playing, then you'll have no reason to even have heard of it. This is just like a specialized field. Banlist fails wikipedia notability criteria, but is notabile around battle.net. The missing 'reliable' sources is kinda classic and usual for articles that are on recents and modern subjects.Esby 15:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've sprotected this sockfest fiasco. Hopefully someone will come up with some references that mention this piece of software. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:NN.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:40, 5 June 2007 (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.