Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Ultimate Power (second nomination)


 * 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. JForget 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Ultimate Power
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability for the site provided from independent reliable sources; the nearest this gets is an interview from a college newspaper.

In particular, the book-of-the-site, and the publisher's blurb for that book, are not independent sources, and the "popular culture" section consists many cites which are solely examples of uses of words or phrases similar to those that occur on the site, with the inference that they are somehow therefore a reference to the site itself.

Although the book appears to be a real independently published book, not all published books are notable; I cannot find any reviews devoted to this book in the mainstream press. The Anome (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this article in the New York Times, the book sold 35,000 copies by April 2006. Wired picked it as a good Christmas book choice in December 2009 here. I'm not going to vote, because it would amuse me greatly if the article was deleted - it's not very good - but it seems to me that you're going to lose. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -, , , definitely notable. It does seem to be vandalized at this point, though, I'll try to revert to a less vandalized version. Joshua Scott (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete self-promotion comes to mind on this one. Website is not notable at all, it's not even professional. Looks like a fan-site made by a child if anything. It wouldn't suprise me if the article creator is the 'book' and 'website' creator as well, which would violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines Alan  -  talk  00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the format, I think the lack of professionalism is intentional - which is funnier, given the content of the book. As for the author's COI, . The original author, lo these many years ago (2004!), was an IP address. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable historical internet meme which spawned dozens of Real Ultimate Power websites, credited in the NY Times as the first fratire book, creator interviewed on National Public Radio and University newspapers. These are enough RS sources to pass any notability criteria. I agree that this article was poorly written with a bunch of OR -- so I have taken a good whack at it. Could use some clean-up in the popular culture section, but that is not a reason to delete. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Considering the site's fame, the sources given are surprisingly weak in establishing notability, but I think this marginally qualifies. Everyking (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Flip Out Keep per cleanup work from CactusWriter. The NYT source would do it for me, but there are others as noted above. Concur that the notability is weak, but it's there. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly enough independent sources to demonstrate notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2010 (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.