Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poptropica


 * 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. - Philippe 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Poptropica

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you please go into more detail about the steps you've taken to make reasonably certain that this article cannot be improved, and that we are best off with not covering this topic rather than covering it in some other way, and the places and methods you've used to search for more sources? --Kiz o r  19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A quick Google search is comes up with ~44K results. Most of the ones I saw in them were either forums, blogs, or other unreliable(?) sites. Given the results of the above (and that the subject is an online game), it seems that it may not be notable or at least not notable yet. If no reliable sources can be found, the my !vote is delete. Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources seem like an acceptable starting point. Nan oha A's Yu ri     Talk, My master 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reliable sources -, ,.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem That first one is just a press release, even if it made its way to another website. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. ivillage might be a little more reliable, but it's questionable. I have no further opinion on this article's notability: it's tough to say. Randomran (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More Articles Another source has released an article related to Poptropica. Hub CanadaIdocartoons (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep adequately attested on the web. JJL (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am the author of the article. I revisit the article every couple of days to clean it up and make sure the original context and grammar is upheld. This article references an extremely popular kids game, and kids love to come in and add their own commentary to the article ( hence the occasional poor grammar ). Thank you for the suggestions and article points for reference. I will go into the article and update immediately. Idocartoons (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Article makes no assertion of subject's notability beyond subject's existence. Notoriety and notability are not the same thing. Article fails here, here, and here.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep L0b0t uses "Notability" as a point to delete. A quote from the notability section - "Online games are likely to be notable if they have a particularly large paid or free subscriber base.". Please note Poptropica.com's rating in the independent internet rating company Quantcast. Poptropica.com receives over 3 million unique monthly views, and over 130 million page views . Idocartoons (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The usage data reflects visitors to the website not active players/subscribers (which is what is meant by "...particularly large paid or free subscriber base..."). L0b0t (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Popularity makes something more likely to be notable... but it doesn't change the standard for inclusion: coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. This thing is obviously quite popular. But does it meet the general notability guideline? (Honest question: I'm not sure. Google gives a lot of hits, but it's hard to find the sources that meet the guideline.) Randomran (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More articles are popping up. Hub Canada is another independent source in addition to iVillageIdocartoons (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
 * Merge and redirect into Virtual world under Education section. The same press release from Pearson has found its way onto sites such as Reuters, Virtual World News, and CNW. Corvus cornix has pointed out one review from iVillage. These are still a bit meager for a full article and might instead help flesh out Virtual world into a better article. If greater number of reliable sources with real-world information can be found, then the article can be spin-out from Virtual world. Jappalang (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the two sources Idocartoons mentions just above which provide significant coverage in multiple sources and thus establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 16 June 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.