WorldEdit: Only mentions.  Everything else is either a primary source or is unreliable/unvetted.  There's really not anything else to say here besides that it is simply not a notable piece of software, and fails SIGCOV.  A WP:BEFORE search does not change this, either.  λ Negative MP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software .  λ Negative MP1 00:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I've just added a couple of academic sources.  Minecraft themselves have endorsed the software in a list, saying that in that list, WorldEdit is "Probably the most commonly used".  — Panamitsu (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep With the sources that Panamitsu found, it barely passes WP:GNG .  If not keep then a merge might be possible to Minecraft modding .  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Owing to Panamitsu's recent update I'll strike the delete.  This is one of the things where a Google search brings a ton of relevant results and youtube videos but very few to none that explicitly cover the topic in a way that would be acceptable to policy.  There's a surprising amount of content in the article owing to borderline original research and citogenesis - probably because there just isn't much else to write.  RetroCosmos ( talk ) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Wikipedia is not a database of every single minor software program.  Fails WP:GNG with a dearth of significant coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 11:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Minecraft modding .  I think there's just not enough significant coverage about what the program is and its value to the modding community to warrant an independent article.  Most of the non-research articles are primary sources.  The coverage about the modders who used it to create something in Minecraft is trivial.  I think the strongest stuff here is the recognition from Softonic and Rock Paper Shotgun that it is useful software, but there's not a lot of content and as a listicle both are not terribly descriptive or evaluative.  Similarly, the research articles add some but not a lot of value.  Two are theses, which are generally viewed as primary sources under WP:SCHOLARSHIP .  The Deepak paper does not mention the program in the content of the paper.  The Nebel paper is inaccessible but WorldEdit seems to be used in the context of researchers using it as an application for educational tools, which isn't mentioned in the article nor complemented by other research sources, so I'm not sure it's something to hang notability onto.  The Rossi source is of minor value with a sentence or two stating that it is a tool with server capabilities that made large-scale modding more efficient.  The Koutsouras article has some occasional references across the paper noting where it is used in technical description of in-game building design practices.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 06:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Minecraft modding .  I tend to agree with Vrxces here; the sources seem to be by and large mentions that aren't big enough to establish notability.  Fails WP:GNG in my opinion.  ― novov (t c) 22:26, 17 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge