Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planes of Existence (talker) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Planes of Existence (talker)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod ("A long extinct site that never had more than 300 users"). The article is fully unreferenced, and there's no evidence it was ever notable. The article is just a basic, personal account of the events and "controversies" surrounding the site. -- lucasbfr  talk 20:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Personal essay. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passed first nomination, important talker in discussing the history of talkers. Article has existed for several years with no problems.  Furthermore, the prod statement is false.  It had over 15,000 users.  It had 300 users online at the same time.  There is a big difference.  It is completely well referenced by the looks of it, with over 20 references. Makes pretty big claims to notability, which have been backed up over the past 3 years.  More notable than the other 11 talker articles combined.  It had previously been established that text-based settings, such as talkers and MUDs, cannot have the same kinds of references as other topics, hence the same rules cannot be applied for their verifiability.  This passes common sense guidelines for verifiability.  It existed, it had that many users, it was that popular, it was that important.  That much is obvious.  It isn't possible to have references of the kind that were suggested it to have, as no talker or mud article would ever have such references.  Dyinghappy (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but none of that is a particularly accurate gauge of popularity and, more importantly, it isn't referenced so it is impossible to verify the information. Unfortunately, we can't just take your word for it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the informal sourcing provided by the  links. This is the sort of material that Wikipedia has long specialised in. DGG (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I might agree if the article was at least a bit sourced, the Opening, Decrease in popularity, Important users, and especially Controversy sections desperately need to be sourced, per WP:BLP for a part. The references at the bottom of the article are all dead, and no secondary sources are used at all. In this state, I think the article is unsalvageable (or else I'd stubbify it, but I couldn't find any relevant reliable source). -- lucasbfr  talk 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge reliably sourced parts with Talker per previous noms. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:16, 4 July 2008 (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.