Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Timeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Gnangarra 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Club Penguin Timeline
- – (View log)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
This isn't an encyclopedia article, its a list of non-notable events in an online game. No sources so completely unverifiable, amounts to original research. Original prod notice removed without comment Gwernol 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puffle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Penguin Times Gwernol 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like some group's adventures debugging a game. Delete, not notable. Anthony Appleyard 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Anthony semper fictilis 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Are there supposed to be timelines on Wikipedia? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There's no reason not to have them on Wikipedia, as long as they are properly sourced, are neutrally worded and don't contain original research Gwernol 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a source to the aricle ([1]); so now it is sourced. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately that's not a reliable source. Nor does it why the timeline of events in Club Penguin are notable enough to warrant their own article. Gwernol 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why isn´t it reliable? It is official... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- What we need are multiple, non-trivial, independent sources per the notability guidelines. An encyclopedia uses secondary sources: i.e. reporting about a subject not the subject itself. Gwernol 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why isn´t it reliable? It is official... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's not a reliable source. Nor does it why the timeline of events in Club Penguin are notable enough to warrant their own article. Gwernol 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Sources can be verified. No one is trying. --Defender 911 01:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As said above, sources can be verified. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Because of what is said above. Ratónbat 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose to Deletion I believe that we should discuss on how to improve this article, rather than whether or not we should delete it. I believe that with a bit of help, Club Penguin Timeline will qualify as a Wikipedia-worth article.--Coin945 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree completely! Just like Coin945 said, we should intend to improve the article rather than deleting it; for instance, Club Penguin was nominated for deletion but some argued that if it can be improved, then it should be improved, not deleted! Of course, there still remains the problem with the sources, but they can be produced quite easilly; as a matter of fact, I will consider doing it very soon! Finally, as for notability, it was argued that Runescape was a better article and didn´t have a timeline; so... Why should Club Penguin, an article of less quality, have a timeline? Well, my response to this statement is that Club Penguin is a less developed article because than Runescape becuase the game is for little kids who most probably are to small to be interested, and to even be able, to edit Wikipedia; but... This doesn´t mean that the article isn´t notable? If you check the miniclip website, you will see Club Penguin as the #1 game of the top-ten; so, if it beats so many ther games, including Runescape, the it really must be notable... Don´t you think? Also, if for some reason you who support this deletion do it becuase you do not like Club Penguin, then let me tell you that this has got nothing to do, it still is notable even though you do not enjoy it, because others surely do if it´s #1 of the top-ten... So, I believe that Club Penguin should have a time-line because it is notable enough. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I AGREE! Deleting an article doesn't solve problems! It may create problems! --Defender 911 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- No amount of discussion on how to improve the article will lead to an article that meets Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree completely! Just like Coin945 said, we should intend to improve the article rather than deleting it; for instance, Club Penguin was nominated for deletion but some argued that if it can be improved, then it should be improved, not deleted! Of course, there still remains the problem with the sources, but they can be produced quite easilly; as a matter of fact, I will consider doing it very soon! Finally, as for notability, it was argued that Runescape was a better article and didn´t have a timeline; so... Why should Club Penguin, an article of less quality, have a timeline? Well, my response to this statement is that Club Penguin is a less developed article because than Runescape becuase the game is for little kids who most probably are to small to be interested, and to even be able, to edit Wikipedia; but... This doesn´t mean that the article isn´t notable? If you check the miniclip website, you will see Club Penguin as the #1 game of the top-ten; so, if it beats so many ther games, including Runescape, the it really must be notable... Don´t you think? Also, if for some reason you who support this deletion do it becuase you do not like Club Penguin, then let me tell you that this has got nothing to do, it still is notable even though you do not enjoy it, because others surely do if it´s #1 of the top-ten... So, I believe that Club Penguin should have a time-line because it is notable enough. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 19:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If we do keep this article, how should we improve it?--Coin945 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- To improve it, we should cite sources, first of all. Then we could work on organizing it better. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be original research. The article does not establish the noteability (outside the game) of any of the events listed. Dr bab 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete as unsourced OR. The only reference is a blog, that's a good indication that it cannot be verified. --Cyrus Andiron 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I´ve added several sources; they are second party unofficial sources. They are here: Club Penguin Timeline#References/Sources/External links ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
KeepHow about actually trying to verify our sources and improving the article? Deleting creates problems! --Defender 911 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- You only need to express your opinion once per AfD - even if its relisted. Gwernol 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- As long as my vote is counted. --Defender 911 10:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Deleting an article that does not adhere to Wikipedia's policies, this one for example, does not create any problems. An unsourced and unverified article is not preferrable to no article at all. --Cyrus Andiron 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response Wouldn't that mean more work to bring back the article? Improvement is more preferable to deletion. --Defender 911 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there was any evidence that this article reached, or could reach, our notability criteria, I would agree. But in the month that the article's been around and the days this AfD has been running, not a single independent, non-trivial published source has been suggested for the notability of even one event described in this article. None of the people urging we keep this has been able to show any evidence that this is notable. At some point we have to pull the plug on this as it simply doesn't meet our basic minimum standards for inclusion. Gwernol 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response >:0 No one is payed for this. "Pull the plug"? There is no cost to Wikipedia to keep this article. Why delete it? Improvement is a much better option. And if you do pull the plug, I'll have a surprise waiting. ;) --Defender 911 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response to Deletion I have added various references to such websites as wordpress so at least it is starting to get referenced.--Coin945 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that wordpress is not a reliable source. Because anyone can write anything on a wordpress blog, it doesn't have the same value and reliability as a published source. Reliable sources include newspapers and books, where there is an editorial selection and verification process Gwernol 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I WILL NOT BACK DOWN! I WILL FIGHT 'TILL THE BITTER AND (hopefully not) BLOODY END! >:(--Defender 911 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that wordpress is not a reliable source. Because anyone can write anything on a wordpress blog, it doesn't have the same value and reliability as a published source. Reliable sources include newspapers and books, where there is an editorial selection and verification process Gwernol 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there was any evidence that this article reached, or could reach, our notability criteria, I would agree. But in the month that the article's been around and the days this AfD has been running, not a single independent, non-trivial published source has been suggested for the notability of even one event described in this article. None of the people urging we keep this has been able to show any evidence that this is notable. At some point we have to pull the plug on this as it simply doesn't meet our basic minimum standards for inclusion. Gwernol 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response Wouldn't that mean more work to bring back the article? Improvement is more preferable to deletion. --Defender 911 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V. No citations to reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. No citations to reliable, third-party published sources. No real assertion of notability beyond 'its a timeline for an online game', and although it's frowned upon to use such words, it definitly falls into my definition of 'pure fancruft'. DarkSaber2k 11:42, 26 April 2007 (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.
