Talk:Whyville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Notice

This article should not be deleted for one reason - the same reason Wikipedia is here. Its a website, with 2,000,000 users, who might want to know more. So it is considered Encyclopedic Content Which is why we have Wikipedia in the first place!!!! USADude 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This was originally deleted because there were no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I put up the new version, that I had backed up on my comp. there was the original site as a source... <sarcasm>Not a very reliable source, now is it...</sarcasm> USADude 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a large number of additional sources to the description of the site - and will work with USADude to keep the entry updated. things are moving fast in the virtual world space.

[edit] Valid references

Although I'm the editor who tagged this for speedy deletion as a reproduction of previously-deleted content, there do seem to be some valid references that might make this article work:

Corvus cornix 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population increase on whyville

I happen to have noticed that Whyville has has a sudden population increase. More people will probaly come to whyville if this remains in article :D. By the way, How did you ever come across this article over all of the others?

I was reviewing WP:DRV, where the previous incarnation had been upheld as keep deleted, but there was a blue link, indicating that it had been recreated anyway. Corvus cornix 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whyville in the news

Visit their original site for Whyville in the news at: http://b.whyville.net/smmk/top/news

Then tell me what "No reliable sources" is. USADude 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A website's own site is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are those which come from other people, well known publications, which verify their content. Corvus cornix 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actully those are links to sites and news sites that have talked about them, have you even looked at them?Vancyon 16:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: tone issues

This article has some serious tone issues: too much emphasis on what "you" can do on the site as opposed to what the site offers "its users" for example. Another problem is the unsourced commentary: "Perhaps Whyville could release a used Scion business sometime?" Perhaps, but this sort of speculation and/or wishful thinking is not appropriate encyclopedic material. --Kinu t/c 05:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets not get into encyclopedic content issues again... USADude 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Fixed, now i'm taking off the tag.

[edit] Do not fall for false editing.

Please do not let all these kingclams frauds get in the article. Usadude> I would appreciate if you did not erase my posts Vancyon 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingclams is a fraud.