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 Keep (non-admin closure), as nobody supported this request. Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poptropica[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

The article is a borderline spam article - the developer doesn't have an articl, there's nothing about gameplay, there are no sources, and the page is uncategorised. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start off by rebutting a few of those reasons: 1) That the developer doesn't have an article doesn't mean a thing in a deletion discussion and 2) Gameplay and uncategorized: ((sofixit)). Those things said, your nomination hints at WP:V and WP:RS and specifically WP:ADVERT (I chose not to use spam, deliberately). With that in mind, I !vote to delete. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as WP:V and WP:RS are concerned, the discussion from the first nomination shows otherwise. However, I'll agree with WP:ADVERT, but given the verifiable sources mentioned in the first nomination, this article can be cleaned up to remedy this problem. MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG states that press releases can not be used to establish notability, which, while the sources produced were of reliable quality, were still only "reprinting" the press release. That seems to fail the requirement of reliable secondary sourcing (It personally confuses me as to why WP:N contains examples of items which are not WP:RS, but there it is). Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't see iVillage being a reliable source either, and that essentially sums up the sourcing from the first nomination. To take it another level, those sources also fail WP:WEB.

Again, I think this nomination was done poorly, but I think in present circumstances, the choice should be to delete rather than to merge or clean up. --Izno (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be splitting hairs over the verifability of the iVillage article, as the article is looking from outside the realm of video gaming. It seems to be built like IGN, but obviously non-video game-related. I would also claim that the Hub Canada and Virtual World News articles seem verifiable. I do agree that the other two articles mentioned would not fly, however. It's the presence of those other articles I mentioned that shot down the first nomination for AfD (which was nominated because of an alleged lack of notability). MuZemike (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second look through the first nomination and the sources provided there, I'd still like to throw out the press releases. I'm hesitant to support the other two, but as it is, the article still looks like an advertisement, so the article needs a thorough scrubbing if it survives AfD, which it appears they will. Can you or another non-canvassed editor do that for me? --Izno (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As mentioned in the discussion of this article's first nomination three weeks ago, sources can be found; it needs to be referenced. Article can easily be expanded to include gameplay and addition of categories. MuZemike (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This game has greatly increased in popularity since the article was first nominated back in June 2008, and it can be greatly improved. I don't see one good reason to delete the article now. A month ago, I guess I can understand. Now, one out of every four kids that I know play Poptropica, and it shouldn't be unheard of on Wikipedia. Look around, and you'll see plenty of articles that deserve deletion. But Poptropica? I can't see why you would delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.216.223 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THis is a informationable site for poptropica this is kinda like advertising but keep the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himee2 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.17.26 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Categories have been added. MuZemike (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've looked through the references provided, and though it's borderline, it seems to me they satisfy WP:RS: it has indeed been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. More sources would be better, of course, but as it is I think this article is worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other points. I note this observation from the first AFD: 'Poptropica.com receives over 3 million unique monthly views, and over 130 million page views'. If that's the case (or if it's increased since then), its claim to notability is strengthened. Secondly, I agree that one of the nominator's arguments, 'the page is uncategorised', is not a rationale for deletion, and in any case no longer applies. Terraxos (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,It's funny actually. The article doesnt correctly cite refs, but none the less. It cites refs. Making it verifiable. All it needs is a good thurought cleanup. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on the grounds that it passed AFD with a keep decision ONE MONTH AGO. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time in order to gain a desired result. I am assuming good faith that the nom might not have been aware of the previous AFD a few weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an notable, verifiable article in there somewhere. As noted above there are references and what it needs a proper cleanup. I don't find any of the nomination arguments valid, and given the recent AfD this would almost be a candidate for Speedy Keep. Icemotoboy (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above, but with hope for semi-protection due to massive vandalism by above mentioned kids who play this game. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the multiple reasons mentioned already stated (recent AFD and RS etc). Mathmo ^Talk 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[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.