Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overclockersclub


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Overclockersclub

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Just chock-full of in-depth information and namechecking of non-notable moderators and posters, apparent conflict of interest.  Dei z  talk 10:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * delete I just dont see why you would have an article on this. Its a website, fine but whats notable about it I fail to see and so vote it be deleted --PrincessBrat 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete- Looks like advert spam to me. Full of external links to the site, praise and unsourced claims. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. It does not violate WP:WEB as it discusses the site's achievements, and I'm sure more will be listed over time.  I also don't see how it violates WP:V as the person who created the page is an administrator of that site, but if there is some sort of verification process that must be done, then I think you should contact that person.  Those that are calling for this page's deletion are probably just from other competing sites that don't want to see OverclockersClub receive any recognition. --ClayMeow 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — ClayMeow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  speedy Delete tagged. Non-notable, spam. --NMChico24 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per A7 (NN web content). Per ClayMeow's assertation above that the article was written by the site's admin, add WP:COI/Spam to that as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An admin unilaterally chose to decline declined the speedy deletion of this article, fyi. --NMChico24 21:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, "unilaterally".. Is that a problem? There is a keep !vote above, and in any case the article appears to assert notability, hence the reason I listed it here rather than speedily deleting it myself.  Dei z  talk 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The keep votes are by the main page author and a sockpuppet. And as far as speedy deletes go, it always depends on which admin looks at the article.  There is little consistency in interpretations of the guidelines.  In any case, that's neither here nor there, so I'll strike the apparently offensive wording.  :-) --NMChico24 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, as nom I'm sure this should be deleted, just its always less painless and more definitive to follow process, and to be seen to be following process when dealing with web forum AfDs. Forum members usually don't understand WP practices (as evidenced on this page) so it helps if multiple editors show how these things work, rather than one lone admin who then gets flamed and harassed.  Dei z  talk 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete I thought I had already discussed this with Alphachimp. If you view his archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alphachimp/Archive_14 #'s 52 through 56 discuss this. Please read those archives Sdy284 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)sdy284) — Sdy284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment- I read them, and it seems the article still has no secondary sources providing verifiability to the claims it makes. They may sound factual to you, but information from primary sources isn't enough and original research is worse. Removing the plethora of external links was a good start, however the article still looks like a TOC page on a magazine! Find some notable sources to cite any of the information you wish to include in the article, and work on its point of view, and you'll have a candidate for a good article. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Comment'Then what is different about these sites Hardocp & Anandtech}Anandtech that allow them to not be deleted? I don't see any sources listed for any of themSdy284 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)sdy284
 * AfD debates are conducted according to the relationship of the article in question to WP policies and practices, not perceived similarities / differences / problems with completely different articles.  Dei z  talk 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But my point is that those articles are for tech websites. I'm just trying to understand what content they have that makes them not "up for deletion." Because just from looking at them, they don't have anything that would prevent them from getting deleted. Sdy284 06:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) sdy284
 * HardOCP has been up for deletion before. You can read the log to see what kinds of criticism it went through. Basically, an article is not up for deletion, because nobody put it up for deletion. If you read it and think there's something wrong with it, you can nominate it for a deletion discussion just like this one. If nobody else thinks your arguments are valid, be prepared for some quick keep votes and possible accusations of bad faith nomination. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, make sure you familiarize yourself with WP:POINT before making any such nominations.  Dei z  talk 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think sdy284's purpose was to get HardOCP or Anandtech deleted, but rather to understand why OCC was being targeted, and what can be done to prevent the OCC article from being deleted.--ClayMeow 20:21, 28 May 2007 (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.