Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planarity
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. - Bobet 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Planarity
I don't think this meets WP:V/WP:RS requirements. Nice game and all and certainly no offense to the game's creator of course, but I don't think it meets the bar for notability/reliable sources/verifiability. I'd be perfectly happy if I am proved wrong. Wickethewok 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:RS are guidelines for the content of a page. Failing them is not a criteria for deleting the article. (I doubt you want to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and Category:Articles lacking sources.) As for WP:WEB, I don't know whether it's even applicable, considering that there are two different implementations of the game, one of which is not web-based. I will rewrite the article so that it is more about the game, and less about one specific implementation. — SvdB 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- What I am saying is that if you remove all content that fails WP:V/WP:RS, then it will be empty. If you read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, it clearly states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Seems pretty straightforward to me. Wickethewok 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I'm done with the rewriting. The page is now about the game, and pages on the sites of the two implementations serve as references to the stated facts. — SvdB 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- What I am saying is that if you remove all content that fails WP:V/WP:RS, then it will be empty. If you read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, it clearly states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Seems pretty straightforward to me. Wickethewok 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- From my Googling, most of my hits are not about any sort of game. Most are just the concept of things being planar. Just fyi, that if it is kept, this article should probably be renamed. Wickethewok 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - From the way this reads now, it's a poster child for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day . Although this is only an essay, it's a good umbrella term for when an article fails on certain guidelines and policies. The Kinslayer 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- If this game ever fell into the "things made up in school one day" category, it has since outgrown that. Just look at the amount of links to the flash version. And on top of that, this game has spawned a second implementation. — SvdB 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete. Unfortunately, the article still provides no explanation of why the game might be notable. --Alan Au 22:55, 5 November 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.
