Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbo Hotel
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 speedy WP:SNOW keep—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Habbo Hotel
Non-notable Random832T 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, gets 377 overall hits at Factiva, 60 of which are articles containing "Habbo Hotel" in their headlines. As of right now, there are also ten Google News results and 80 (!) Google Scholar results. I'd say it meets WP:WEB #1 fairly easily. Zagalejo 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep I concur with PresN. The nominator's claim has no base, might as well close this already. Just H 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's already been demonstrated that there are plenty of sources available to continue building the article, passing WP:WEB. I'd be looking for a bit more than "non-notable" as justification for deletion, particularly when that doesn't ring true. QuagmireDog 18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above; subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Muchness 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep massively notable, no deletion reason given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I remember seeing a rather massive article in Wired or somewhere which discussed Habbo Hotel. Notability appears quite well established. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely strong keep, even speedy. Would you at least look at the article or do a little searching before claiming it's non-notable? — brighterorange (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - is there some secret reason for this nominate I can't gather?WilyD 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- A keep with a moat around it and guard towers - There should be crocodiles in the moat, too. --Dch111 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Very unconsidered nomation considering the huge popularity and previous hype around the subject. Whilding87 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per discussions above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as above. Seriously, this is a joke right? --Scottie theNerd 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, because the user doesn't even begin to describe why it's "non-notable." The user attempted this very weakly. And look, he's a Gaia Online user :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are millions of gaia online users (OK, fine, there are millions of accounts. There are almost certainly at least hundreds of thousands of users, though) - I've never said anything about Habbo Hotel or any nonexistent raids in the entire time I've been on gaia online, I've never seen any discussion of it on gaia the entire time I've been there, and this is an ad hominem attack anyway. I nominated this because I remembered repeated assertions in the past by others on the talk page that the only reason it was notable was something that was itself unverifiable. As for not explaining it; in VFD's I've seen in the past, it seemed to most common to say something like "non-notable", "fancruft", "original research", or whatever else and then disappear off with no further explanation, so I honestly thought this was standard practice and no further explanation was necessary. --Random832T 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an 'ad-homiem' attack, so please do not make statements such as that that cannot be verified. Note that I added a ':P' to the text, and as a user of Habbo Hotel, there are some nice gags that go on towards players of Gaia Online. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- :P isn't exactly clear in meaning among emoticons - i've always thought it implied derision [i.e. it would _enhance_ the perception that you're saying "since you're a gaia online user, you must be biased against habbo hotel" or whatever you were trying to imply] --Random832T 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Stating a Wikipedia policy is not sufficient; a good argument (and therefore a good nomination) would outline why the article is against quoted policies. What may be obviously "non-notable" to you may not be clear to anyone else. --Scottie theNerd 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not an 'ad-homiem' attack, so please do not make statements such as that that cannot be verified. Note that I added a ':P' to the text, and as a user of Habbo Hotel, there are some nice gags that go on towards players of Gaia Online. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are millions of gaia online users (OK, fine, there are millions of accounts. There are almost certainly at least hundreds of thousands of users, though) - I've never said anything about Habbo Hotel or any nonexistent raids in the entire time I've been on gaia online, I've never seen any discussion of it on gaia the entire time I've been there, and this is an ad hominem attack anyway. I nominated this because I remembered repeated assertions in the past by others on the talk page that the only reason it was notable was something that was itself unverifiable. As for not explaining it; in VFD's I've seen in the past, it seemed to most common to say something like "non-notable", "fancruft", "original research", or whatever else and then disappear off with no further explanation, so I honestly thought this was standard practice and no further explanation was necessary. --Random832T 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hope so, because the user doesn't even begin to describe why it's "non-notable." The user attempted this very weakly. And look, he's a Gaia Online user :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep: baseless nomination. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Zagalejo —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:04, 20 January 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.
