Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban75

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Urban75
The subject of a seemingly endless revert war, is this really worth keeping? Smileyrepublic 14:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This article was listed for deletion earlier this month. The deletion discussion was closed here ten days before this nomination, and the result was keep.


 * Abstain (for now). How popular is this site? Is the user community as large as say Something Awful or the Straight Dope Message Board? A website has to show some serious notability to be included in the Wikipedia, and after a cursory look at the site I see a lot of activity going on, and 190,000 Google hits is nothing to shake a stick at. Also, we have to consider that if it has a really large user base, this article is likely just going to keep getting re-created, especially if people are already warring over it. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 15:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mgm below. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 03:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Alexa rank ~64,000. (For comparison, the sites mentioned above have a rank better than 7000.)  A large portion of the Google hits come from the site, blogs, or from/about unrelated sites of similar names (urban75.org, urban75.net).  --Xcali
 * Comment - urban75.org and urban75.net are part of the same site. Smileyrepublic 16:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I said on the previous VfD, Emotion Eric, which also has an entry on WP, has an Alexa rank of 98,544, much much lower than Urban75. Should that be therefore deleted too? Thenugga 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a perfectly good article about an encyclopedic website.  It's difficult to take a second nomination seriously when it's barely a week after the first was closed.   If there were an "endless revert war", this suggests that the article should be protected, not destroyed. As it happens, there doesn't seem to be significantly more revert warring than on comparable articles. However, the nominator, User:Smileyrepublic, seems to have been engaged in a pointless edit war in the past day or two.  I'm issuing a warning to him to stop.  He's gone way over the 3RR, and I've issued a formal (final) warning on his user talk page.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples of Urban 75 in the news:
 * Guardian October 28, 2004
 * Guardian, May 13, 2004
 * BBC News Brian Paddick story
 * Keep. I'll assume good faith and think the nominator was unaware of the previous vfd. But I don't see how another discussion is warranted so short after the earlier vfd. - Mgm|(talk) 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per TonySideway. Falphin 00:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep for integrity of process -- renomination too soon. Xoloz 04:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: wasn't this page on VfD short time ago (and survived)? Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Renominated 10 days after we decided, 13 to 4 (disregarding sockpuppet/anon votes), that it should be kept.  We should go ahead and speedy-keep this article, before we end up with a flood of vandalism on the VfD like we had last time. --Idont Havaname 23:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; encyclopaedic, survived recent vote. Warofdreams 28 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.