Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercheats


 * 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. GlassCobra 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Supercheats

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Concern: "No evidence from WP:RS that subject meets notability criteria established at WP:WEB." Suggest deletion per prod rationale: the article doesn't provide references from reliable independent sources to establish the subject's notability. Muchness (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

&mdash; &mdash; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.11.244 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep What is wrong with it anyways? Thanks to our webmaster, he has upgraded the page. No Mark Denver there, I pretty sure that the banned members of SuperCheats done it. Now, it has a very good and high level of vocabulary. I assume you guys to keep it. Its not a total mess now. Please, keep it.
 * Keep Nothing wrong with it now, aside from the very basic vocabulary.
 * — 76.212.11.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Weak keep Probably notable, I heard a impersonator of Tony Hawk say he joined the thing. &mdash; B o L 06:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * congrats on your fancy new sig. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No WP:RS, and no signs of being notable under WP:WEB. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to be notable as per WP:WEB, no reliable independent sources attesting to notability. Lankiveil (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Strong Delete It's a mess. No reliable sources, it's not notable under WP:WEB, it's a definite target for vandalism (the website's banned members seem to relish any opportunity to make the site look bad). Need I go on? I'd like for the website to have a decent page, but this doesn't fit the bill. The contributing members don't really have the knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines to put together a decent article, sadly. The article can't be made notable under WP:WEB anyway. By the way, Mark Denver doesn't exist; nobody who's contributed knows anything about the programmer other than his first name. Rhodri.K (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this referenced and well-organized article. Happy New Year!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because there are no independent sources.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Redirect to UGO Networks following deletion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep ITS FINE!! Whats wrong with it? Its well structured, and not biased. Simply lock it if it starts being vandalised, there are plenty of pages that are targets of vandalism, such as musical artists etc, you cant just delete something cos people decide to be twerps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifist 13 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2008
 * — Pacifist 13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * This article wasn't nominated for deletion because it's a target of vandalism (which is not a valid argument for deletion), it was nominated because there's a concern it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see WP:N and WP:WEB). --Muchness (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2008 (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.