Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin (third nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Club Penguin
A DRV consensus overturned the previous deletion of this article through AfD in light of new evidence of increased notability since that time. Please see the DRV before commenting here. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. A note to interested editors: this article has a long history, including several recreations; I have reverted to the last reasonably long version, but superior edits might be found in the history. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:WEB ST47 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced. As it is, it asserts but doesn't establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, significant youth phenomenonon along with other Mini-clip MMORPGs. I don't really wan to argue around WP:WEB, however the creator is NEw Interactive, the publisher, MIni-Clip, so it seems to meet 3. The game also has been awarded BBB OnLine Kid's Privacy Seal of Approval and Mini-Clip the Peoples Voice Webby Award for the best Games website (criteria 2). "Club penguin" has c. 122k google hits. Rich Farmbrough 09:33 21 August 2006 (GMT).
- Note I have unprotected the article. I propose to tell the people who wondered on the talk page why it hafd been deleted that a new deletion debate has started, since they probably know more about CP than any of us. Rich Farmbrough 09:36 21 August 2006 (GMT).
- Miniclip.com hosts hundreds of games. While having a game on it isn't 'trivial' in the way that having a game on Newgrounds is, being on Miniclip clearly isn't intrinsically notable. We don't need articles on Ride the Rapids or Sudoku, to name a couple on their front page. On the other hand, some of their games may stand out, in the way that RuneScape obviously does, and the way to demonstrate that is by showing that Club Penguin has received external coverage to a similar degree. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless external coverage is demonstrated. I've seen several versions of this that got deleted, and none have progressed above an advert, which it still is at time of writing (even though I restored this into someone's userspace so it could be worked on before it was moved back to articlespace). --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I hate Club Penguin, but as long as I have been visiting the Miniclip site, I have never, ever seen a game stay at #1 for even a quarter of the time that it has lasted. Not being a 7 year old, I can't really relate, but it must be some kind of phenomenon. Legis 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, is this documented anywhere except in the minds of 7-year-olds? ~ trialsanderrors 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that club penguin is probably the most idiotic website ever created, but my personal opinion does not change the fact that "club penguin" brings up 128,000 results on google and has not left the number 1 position on miniclip for quite a while now. The new article should not be an advertisement as previous ones were, but a well written entry that is written like the article on RunEscape. Warfwar3 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but only if it can be worked up to be as good as Final Fantasy XI, otherwise Delete talk to JD wants e-mail 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are a few problems with the article, but they can be fixed.Hemhem20X6 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment regarding rewriting, which sort of applies to the above three 'keep' arguments: given that this article has been deleted twice by AfD, and that I restored a version of this article into Warfwar3's userspace so he could work on it before restoration (which he doesn't seem to have done), it seems a bit late for "keep but verify, cleanup, rewrite, and generally put a completely different encyclopaedia article here" arguments. In particular, I would like someone to cite specific reliable sources showing that this is verifiable, as two AfDs and at least two deletion reviews haven't yet produced any. "I remember this being at #1 on Miniclip" doesn't count unless a reliable source took note of it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I note there has been quite a lot of re-writing over the past two days. Rich Farmbrough 17:38 23 August 2006 (GMT).
- Comment I mean that it needs copyediting. I already posted that on the page, so I am HOPING that other people will help too.Hemhem20X6 02:23, 25 August 2006 (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.
