- 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. Mr. Z-man 00:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- San Trigo, Bastilion (fictional) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable Minecraft "city" with no evidence of reliable source coverage, and, in fact, little evidence of any coverage beyond Wikipedia mirrors. Everymorning talk 23:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is no coverage from reliable sources, so this article fails notability requirements. I couldn't even find a YouTube video or fan website that proves that this Minecraft city actually exists. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 01:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. This sort of comprehensive fan page belongs on Wikia, where issues of notability and verifiability are not issues. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 12:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- If by some chance this is kept the article should be moved because there is no other article titled San Trigo, Bastilion meaning that adding (fictional) is unnecessary excess.-- 69.157.253.160 ( talk) 04:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - just something somebody created in Minecraft, not notable outside their house -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG et al., no basis for notability claimed. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete For all the previously mentioned reasons and because in my opinion it meets WP:A11 criteria.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 19:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.