Talk:Toontown Rewritten

Restoration

An editor just tried to restore and expand this article. However, as the restoration added no new sources, there was nothing there that conquered the reasons for which it was previously turned into a redirect, which was done as a result of the redirect discussion listed above. Until there are significant new sources to be found, it should remain a redirect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

February 27, 2021 restoration

I recreated the Toontown Rewritten page, adding more than several third-party sources to show that there is some notability for Toontown Rewritten, yet it was revoked back to its redirect. My question is why? One of the past arguments is that Toontown Rewritten did not gain enough coverage to demonstrate notability, but I'd have to disagree. Toontown Rewritten is almost an decade old Toontown server that has had increasing popularity, thus leading to third-party sources creating articles about the game as a result of said popularity. As much as I'd like to link articles but cannot because Wikipedia doesn't seem to like URLs, simple Google searching can be done to find those articles. A new debate should take place discussing the page because the last debate was made in 2014 with arguments that I believe can now be refuted or at least warrant consideration for a new debate. Saturdaynightz (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The article as it was put up did not address notability concerns at all. The references used were mostly to the game's site, and none to the sort of reliable, third-party sources we seek to demonstrate notability. If you can find such sources, I suggest that you create a draft article at Draft:Toontown Rewritten and get that up to snuff in terms of sourcing, then recommend here that people review it. There was consensus to replace the page with a redirect, you're going to need to find some consensus to undo that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Where on the page should I include the draft so it can be easily seen? That page currently already has a draft. Saturdaynightz (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that the draft which is there was done as basically the sole edit of an editor who did it nine months ago and has not returned, you should feel free to wipe out that draft and replace it entirely. (Of course, if you think there are things there which are worth saving, you may, but it doesn't seem to be sourced.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been done. Thoughts? (Draft:Toontown Rewritten) Saturdaynightz (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

February 28, 2021 draft review

Improvements made to my initial draft for Toontown Rewritten that I've worked on can now be found at Draft:Toontown Rewritten. Third-party sources have been included. Saturdaynightz (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability at least approached

@Onel5969: I understand the reversion of the new version that @Saturdaynightz: had put into the place (jumping the gun a bit, but hey, we've all been enthusiastic). I will say that the new version is at least part way toward addressing the problems cited at AfD. While most of the references are non-third party and thus useless for notability, and some are questionable sources, this 2018 article from Kotaku shows that it was getting attention years after our previous consideration in a source that has carried some inside-the-gaming-world weight. I think that deserves recognition and consideration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler, I completely agree with your assessment. However, I felt that the additional independent sourcing still didn't address the prior concerns. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, are you saying that there were too many non-third party sources compared to third-party sources listed on the page? Should there be less non-third party sources, or should there be more third-party sources? I figured at least nine third-party sources were better than just one or two listed on previous versions of the page from years past. I'm a little confused as to what concerns are there. Saturdaynightz (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Many of the third-party sources that were included are not ones we would consider reliable sources, or cover the topic so slightly that it's not considered a strong indicator of notability. It's not just a matter of counting them up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)