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 except signature updates.

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard Downloader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and is just a downloading program for Blizzard games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited, and although this is less clear-cut than the Launcher nomination, I can't really find much in the way of reliable third party sources on a google search. Also, the article as it is is little more than a how-to guide of avoiding using it; and whilst that isn't reason to delete (just cleanup) it doesn't really show this article in any favourable light. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Mix^Sup? 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into World of Warcraft. That Blizzard uses a BitTorrent client to distribute game files is quite notable in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This one's a harder call, as an argument could be made that the program is a proof-of-concept of a "legitimate" use of BitTorrent technology. That being said, unless someone were to add a source claiming this, it is merely my OR supposition... -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few perl scripts that use its output isn't substantial independent coverage. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information seems interesting, and if better sources are found, a mention in the World of Warcraft or BitTorrent client articles might make sense. For a stand-alone article, it should follow along the lines of WP:N like any other software article though. --Minimaki (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable IMO ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate? I fail to see how it is notable specifically because of a lack of non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources, which is, in Wikipedia policy, the definition of notability. Have you got any sources that provide such coverage? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 16:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, it was mentioned in The Register[1]. --Pixelface (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is both a trivial mention and not "significant coverage", really... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mention in WoW article. Bardcom (talk) 00:33, 10 March 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.