Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubed³


 * 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 delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cubed³
Original research on a not particularly notable website (~60k Alexa ranking). Delete also due to no independent sources listed and does not seem to be verifiable info. While it seems like a nice site, that does not make it notable. Wickethewok 03:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need for deletion as this page is being constructed by readers and forum members of Cubed3 and not the staff team. As explains on the talk page for the entry. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtempertonc3 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for an original, never-published-before, history of a web site. Wikipedia is not a primary source.  It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source.  If you want to demonstrate that this article should not be deleted, please cite the secondary sources that are being used to construct it.  If you are not using sources, then you are contravening our No original research policy. Uncle G 07:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Spamvertizing a non-notable organization. --Xrblsnggt 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 04:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a spamvORtisement. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also advertisement, and WP is not a free webhost.  Tychocat 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Other websites such as Revo-Europe and AMN have Wikipedia pages along with N-sider, Planet GameCube and Nintendojo. Cubed3 is of a similar type to these sites and the Wikipedia entry is just as valid. Deletion would be harsh considering the entries already on Wikipedia. I advise that it be left online as a source of information on the site and what it does and its history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtempertonc3 (talk • contribs).
 * Good point. I'll go list those now (only the first three as the last two seem to be notable).  --ColourBurst 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of third party coverage. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB, no third party coverage per WP:RS, and possible WP:SPAM or WP:OR. And trying to justify one article's existence based on that of others never works. -- Kinu t /c  16:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Justification based on almost identical entries is perfectly acceptable. If this entry is to be deleted, then surely countless other entries need to be deleted as well. Marking out a lack of third-party coverage is also incorrect. Cubed3 is linked and noted hugely across a large number of gaming sites on the internet. Its right for a Wikipedia entry is just as justified as that of many other website entries also found here. Jtempertonc3 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many articles in Wikipedia that do not belong. We welcome anyone to help identify them. That doesn't justify adding another. Fan-1967 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So if everyone is looting your house that means its OK for me to do it too? --Xrblsnggt 18:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a good analogy, a precedent has been set through other articles of lesser websites. Ergo this article has little or no grounds for deletion. HazukiSan 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia entry, as can be shown by media references that need to be added in (notably Slashdot and Engadget, amongst others). 2,000,000 monthly page views seems to me to be enough to support that cause. However, a case could be made for spamvertising - the admissability of the Community Features section, in particular, is debatable, as is information such as the interpretations of the name Cubed3. Such information could easily be found on the Cubed3 website if someone is that interested, and isn't of any particular wider interest. The only other problem is the fact that many of those writing the article have vested interests in Cubed3, but NPoV is largely being maintained. --Rob W 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sock Puppetry is not cool, Rob W I'd like to point our that Rob W has one edit to his credit and that is his vote on this page. --Xrblsnggt 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not a sock puppet, thanks very much. I just don't edit much, and when I do I don't bother to log in. --Rob W 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:20, 23 July 2006 (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.