Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whyville

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. It still looks like a speedy deletion candidate to me though, so someone who cares about the subject really should do something about the lack of notability and sources in the article. - Bobet 10:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whyville

This article was speedy deleted due to no claims of notability and no independent references. It was taken to DRV, where the deletion was upheld, but the article was recreated anyway. I put a speedy delete tag on it as a recreation of a previously deleted article, but User:Aecis claims that it can't be re-speedied because it's never been through AfD, even though it has already been upheld at DRV. So do we really need to go round and round this process three times before this thing can die? Corvus cornix 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CSD#G4 only applies to recreation of content deleted via XfD discussions. This article has never gone through AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. If this AfD is closed as delete and the article is recreated afterwards, then G4 would apply. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: the deletion review didn't uphold the deletion, it didn't speak out on the deletion or on the article. The request was closed as "no arguments for undeletion, no information" were given. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a bureaurcacy. Corvus cornix 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listen, if it was previously deleted per A7, A7 might still apply. You may tag the article for that. As I said on your talk page, I'm not certain enough either way to decide on that, I will leave that decision to another admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I put an A7 on it and an admin comes along and deletes. The article gets recreated again, somebody else puts an A7 on it and it gets deleted again. There's nothing to stop it from getting recreated ad nauseum. Corvus cornix 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for page protection, like I've just done on Jamie Gilder. As I said, the article may be speediable for several reasons. But G4 is not one of them. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may start a discussion on the merits of the site...The quality of the article as it stands is atrocious. However - and I very much regret saying this - Whyville appears to be a notable site (even if I would tell my kids to run, run away). USA Today mention it [1] alongside Facebook and the NYTimes News Service lumps it in with Webkinz [2]. There's millions in venture capital and Caltech brains behind it, sadly. Keep following a clean-up Canuckle 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion: I wanted to say Corvus cornix did a good thing in suggesting some news articles as potential sources on the article's Talk page. Do you think the author or other editors will be willing and able to overhaul the content to improve its quality? Canuckle 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I want to dig through [3] yet, but there's enough possible content that I'm willing to say it's worth doing. The current state of the article is poor, but I can believe there's potential for further expansion. If somebody wants to take it up, I'd be willing to say "Keep, but check back in a few months" FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per canuckle... it needs help... but it isn't so bad that it needs to be deleted.Balloonman 04:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No recommendation at the moment... right now, there appear to be some sources on the talk page and above which may indicate why this site is notable. However, 95%+ of the article does nothing to that end; indeed, it is mostly unsourced "game guide" type information about what the site is/does, but nothing about the why and how per WP:WEB. Excising that information would barely leave a substub, so unless something can be added to expound upon said notability by then (I will look into it myself and try), it might be best to start from scratch. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable site; an early entrant in the online virtual world for kids arena and a precursor to sites like NeoPets. I have read about it in the paper several times. Try a news search at Google. Here's one I read recently in the NYT: [4]. See also [5], [6], [7]. This is quite notable and should be kept. JJL 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable site, over 2,000,000 members, and more than 1,200 new members per day. got 1,000,000 more members in the year 2006!!! USADude 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- HI USADude. As the creator of the article, do you think that its quality can be improved? Some concerns were raised above that much of the current content is lacking in relevancy. Given that Whyville is aimed at children, do we have to hold such articles to higher standards than normal? Canuckle 23:03, 24 May 2007 (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.