Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BZPower 3

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. I counted 3 keeps and 3 deletes among established Wikipedians, discounted votes from IPs, users whose first contributions were after this AFD began, and users whose only contributions were to the article and this AFD. Angr/talk 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BZPower[edit]

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}}.

Fixed AfD listing. Nominator abstains. — TheKMan^talk 18:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Most of the article is a list of moderators and staff, which is unencyclopedic anyway. Zetawoof 21:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On reconsideration, I'm changing my vote to keep. With the list of moderators and staff removed, it looks a lot more reasonable. The Alexa rank is pretty good, too. Zetawoof 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it does turn up 17google hits. JoshuaZ 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

- 17? I count something more like 55,000. Zetawoof 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I seem to have googled "BZPower 3" instead of BZPower. I am therefore changing my vote to keep. JoshuaZ 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the largest fan-based Bionicle website--seems notable enough to me. keep. authraw 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it is the largest Bionicle fan site I don't think it should stay. It's just a means of advertisment. delete Matt "AgentA" 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the same as having a link to the Official Bionicle Website forums. I say Keep --Darnz
I don't see anything wrong with having it. I also say Keep -Lihyahm
It's almost entirely an advert. Delete Voporak 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add more enclyclopedic information and it should be good to go keep Timekeeper 13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs improved, not deleted. Fact is, BZP is a very relevent site, it would be silly to delete an article on it. As far as it being an advertisement, BZP hardly needs advertisement. But I beleive that every site of note in the Bionicle community deserves reference; we're talking about the fan community of LEGO's most successful line, that helped save the company, and it is also the company that is more in-tune with its online fan community than virtually any other. There is just plain no justification for any arguement that sites like BZP or MoD do not deserve their own encyclopedic reference, unless you want to argue that the LEGO company is not noteworthy. I see nobody arguing that. keep --Bonesiii 21:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. Discount sock/meatpuppet votes. Ifnord 18:47, 12 March 2006 (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.