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 redirect. The only argument for keeping this seems to be "it exists." It has no real notability/verifiability standing on its own, but it's still the "official" publication, so a redirect to the main topic works. --Wafulz 02:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin Times

[edit]

Article lacks any independent sources so is unverifiable. Even if verified as existing, a fictitious newspaper in a game is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Prod noticed was deleted without explanation Gwernol 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information worth keeping should be incorporated in Club Penguin. BTLizard 14:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could be incorporated to Club Penguin, but it seems alright for a seperate article; but, since not many agrre here, I opt for merge. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Club Penguin. Thunderwing 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Club Penguin Timeline, I think we should keep this article but still try to work on it.--Coin945 11:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Club Penguin per Thunderwing. John Vandenberg 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The picture gives it away, it's an obvious hoax. Etten Joe
This is not a hoax; it is on the main article and on the official websites[1]; this a real fictional newspaper! John Vandenberg 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, no independent sources. In-universe publications are almost never going to be notable enough to warrant an article on their own, unless truly exceptional, which according to this article is not the case here. DarkSaber2k 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ok with Merge: Sorry, this is not a fictitious publication. It exists in cyberspace as much as Salon does. It is regularly published, contains useful information, and has a huge readership (Club Penguin members). -Quartermaster 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are not a substitute for notability. The existence of this publication is not disputed (well, one guy thought it was a hoax, but that's it). What's notable about this newspaper? What's so special about it that people outside of Club Penguin are going to a)Know about it and b) want to look up information about it? DarkSaber2k 09:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm still a noob when it comes to things like "notability" but let me give this an honest response. I agree that numbers don't substitute for notability, but they definitely support the case for notability. One might also say "What's so special about Cycling Weekly that people outside of the UK who don't ride bikes are going to a) Know about it and b) want to look up information about it?" If I'm on a wikipedia learning curve, does this mean that Cycling Weekly should be proposed for deletion? The Penguin Times would be used by people who want to know about the ongoing activities within Club Penguin. It's also the primary organ for announcing upcoming events (and to extend my earlier example of Cycling Weekly) just as the group of bicycling fans in the UK are interested in finding out about upcoming road races, so The Penguin Times serves a similar purpose. It's definitely a niche publication. -Quartermaster 15:57, 27 April 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.