Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGOPlayer (2nd 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 of the debate was delete. I did not count votes from anonymous IPs are users whose only edits were to the page in question and to this AFD. Without those votes the decision was unanimous. Chick Bowen 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

UGOPlayer
The website fails WP:WEB, google links, once you strip out the links on the site itself, amount to six pages. This can be seen by typing UGOPlayer into google yourself. The page is vanity whewre it is not spam and wikipedia is not a web directory. There are no references provided, there are no external sources meeting WP:RS on which to build an article, and so I bring it here asking the community to discuss whether policies should be bent to allow this article's inclusion. The original discussion, at Articles for deletion/UGOPlayer had a discussion which involved alexa rankings. Alexa rankings may show this topic has appeal; it cannot, however, provide us with sources from which to write an article. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Either we change that principle or we enforce it. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, advertisement, non-notable (per nom). Slowmover 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It seems extremely popular which makes me wonder why there's so little written about it outside of this article. AKADriver 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I honestly can't decide either way about this article. Under WP:WEB it fails, but it has a popularity greater than that of many other sites on Wikipedia. So it seems very possible that someone might visit that site, then look here to find out more information on it. But because it seems not to have any references outside of its own domain, the article cannot be sourced, so only things that are self-evident from visiting UGOplayer itself can really be included. And that means this article will provide no new information that couldn't be discovered from just visiting the site, rendering it fairly pointless. I will remain neutral, for the time being Trebor 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If neccassary, I'll bring in my username, but I trust you all know that I have one and don't use it very regularly. It has high alexi ratings, it has many google hits, and it is probably one of the 5 largest non-centered forums on the web (EbaumsWorld, YTMND, Newgrounds, SomethingAwful, and Flashplayer. All are based on user submitted work, and have no direct focus on any topics). If that is not notable, then I do not know what is. It has 60,000 members, unless you for some reason believe the site lies regularly. I disagree with the notabiltiy "Requirements" for a website, and this is the most obvious case. I think keep, and change the notability requirements to include something on ratings or hits.68.192.25.106 19:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unless you login and post a comment, the closing admin is highly likely to discount your recommendation. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * CertificationHere. I'm logged it. I vote strong keep.Sbloemeke 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now, since I've been involved in an edit war and am tempted to vote to delete for the wrong reason. The IP above is the other party, and nominator has been editing the article recently also. Fagstein 05:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The question should not be one of notability here, it should be that there are no sources from which to build an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is, quite clearly, not a web directory; therefore we require independent sources from which to document a given topic.  In this instance they do not currently exist, and thus an article which does not violate original research cannot be written. Note that WP:V requires that Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources.  There are no credible third party sources for this article to rely upon. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If no reputable third-party sources are covering this website, we cannot either. Delete for lack of verifiability.  Friday (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the monkey This is a fairly new article, I think you should keep it up just because it need long enough for it to grow. Sources can be found, links can be made and etc. so dont kill the baby, its like abortion.Arby A3K 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam (IP editors), advertisement, non-notable. --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per verifiability, WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:18, 28 April 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.