Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCoz


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

UCoz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

CMS software with no claim of notability. no third party reliable sources where found (in English - I do not speak Russian) but those in Russian seem to point to product/company website. 16x9 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- 16x9 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - Previously Afd was under a different name found here Articles for deletion/UcoZ 16x9 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom, there doesn't seem to be any support for "notability" in English or Russian (using the Google Language Translator). Couldn't find anything to support wide use by anyone. Maybe sometime, but not today. Proxy User (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. Technically uCoz takes a leading place among the vendors of this type of service that are already represented in Wikipedia: Wix.com Weebly Geocities. Speaking about notability, it's enough to view Alexa rank of the related services and compare them with uCoz rank. To delete the article about uCoz means to make Wikipedia less informative. Meskalyto (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Meskalyto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Quote: The article about uCoz is necessary, because this service is mass. I did a search using The Google, and I can't really say that what I found supports this assertion. Can you provide references that support your contention that it is in "mass" use? Proxy User (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not a requirement for article subjects and WP:RS to be English only. Moreover, according to Alexa, ucoz.ru has a traffic rank of 237 which helps show that this CMS is very much notable. Why not put more effort into researching and improving these articles vs mass-nominating them for AfD? Tothwolf (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No one said there was a requirement. However, there is a requirement to have third party reliable sources that establish notability and none have been found.  You should also assume good faith and be civil.  16x9 (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Insinuation of SPA as you did in the edit summary for Meskalyto above when you refactored his comments is a serious allegation. My statements are based on the pattern I'm seeing in your edit summaries. Shall I link to them? I suggest you assume good faith and be civil towards all the editors you are accusing of spamming in all the CMS articles you are nominating for deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I read that comment about Russian the same as you, 16x9 is heavy-handed in his paroling of the CMS space here at Wikipedia. But it's irrelevant in this case. Russian or English, a Web search does not support notability. Are there supporting references in *any* language? That is the issue. Proxy User (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Try google.ru? I don't speak Russian or have a Cyrillic keyboard so I'm not able to dig into it that well either. This might have been a good use for the expert-subject template as there are Russian-speaking users here on en.wiki. One of the first links that I managed to turn up was this one so it would seem there is information out there— its just not in English. Tothwolf (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I used google translate and the words Press Release stand out to me.  But it is good to know that you, like me do not speak Russian, but when I don't know it I am attacked.  16x9 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference being I'm not the one nominating the article (or rather lots of CMS articles) for AfD. You should be able to check for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Bringing something here and expecting others to check before voting is improper. Tothwolf (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I DID do my homework before being lots of non-notable CMS related articles for Afd. This Afd is not about me it is about the lack of third party reliable sources for ucoz and how it fails notability for inclusion in wikipedia.  The only possible RS I found were in russian and maybe I was ambigous in my nomination, but I checked those with google translate, which can be flawed, and determined those source to fail.  16x9 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I found several that you nominated in books about blogging. One in particular that I intend to rescue went though AfD with three votes— to delete...and had no votes or discussion at all until after a relist. Maybe, just maybe you are missing some of this stuff when you check for references? (If you want to discuss this further, you know where my talk page is located.) Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable software.Nrswanson (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent sources can be found that establish the subject's notability.Inmysolitude (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2009 (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.