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. Shereth 18:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A page about a virtual in-game competition, I don't see how this meets notability guidelines. StaticGull Talk 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep — Mhm, I contributed since I knew alot about the topic, didn't make it myself. I think it suits well to Wiki though, a big publicised event rolling out to eventually 30,000,000 online users? It's not just an "virtual competition" for a few people: it's for millions and millions and millions of people. --RofoUK (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm assuming that your opinion is to keep the article. (I'm asking because you didn't indicate, and I'm putting that in for you.) With that aside, what you said is a textbook example of WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE; that is, quantification does not determine notability, but the quality of the article's verifiable, third-party sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, it was a keep - sorry, not used to this sort of thing. I understand, yeah, so for what the article needs is more sources for it to stay? Not just ones from Habbo.co.uk/Sulake.com?--RofoUK (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry about it. I did it when I was new, too. Anyways, no, the website you mentioned would not work as the sources from there are not third-party and can possibly construe as original research. Read WP:V and especially WP:VG/S for what would count as reliable sources that help establish the article's notability. The latter contains some good websites that have been determined as verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I've failed to find any reliable sources from unrelated sites, so the event doesn't pass notability. Lots of forum posts, fansites etc., but nothing which would help the article. Someoneanother 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If Pool's Closed don't get an article, but a certain in-game event does, then that sums it all. --PenaltyKillahJw21 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Not a viable excuse for a whole page about it. Perhaps a small mention on the actual Habbo page but not one solely for it. The information about it being rolled out to eventually 30,000,000 users is incorrect - Habbo UK have around 8m per month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.160.30 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously don't know what your talking out - it's being rolled out internationally - with 31 hotels in operation, with an average of what... 8,000,000 per hotel... that totals to 240,000,000 (that's two-hundred and fourty million, if your not great with numbers). Nice try, though. --RofoUK (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now, Redirect to Habbo, let's try again if they do it multiple times. Not viable for an article of its own - yet - but I think whatever big verifiable facts there are here will fit just nicely as a section in the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.