Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moture

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 - Non notable. Google searches do not turn up much evidence that this site is known. --++Lar: t/c 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moture

Contested WP:PROD, my original reason was "ad for non-notable website, 38 forum members, no evidence of meeting WP:WEB". Article was also created by the website's owner (or at least somebody whose username is the name of the site's owner). Delete. Kusma (討論) 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT (Ads + promotion) and possible WP:AUTO. Yanksox 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sox --Deville (Talk) 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, I created the page, but not as an advertisment.

So your view on this situation is that if a website has few members, than it is advertising, but if it is a well known site, then it's not advertising? That is extremely unfair, and if you look at the statistics you will clearly see that in less than a month we've had nearly 15,000 visitors. http://www.moture.co.uk/moture/modules.php?name=Statistics Remember, don't just base moture's notability on the amount of members, the forum is just an add on to moture, an optional registration option is available, but the majority of moture can be accessed and used without registration, you can even comment on news. etc without an email address, only 0.24% of visitors to moture actually register.

Moture is a notable site. Matt 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the site meets Wikipedia:Notability (web). Has the site been written about in other publications? Kusma (討論) 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not the well known bit that means it's not advertising. For the most part, Wikipedia doesn't allow any sort of pages regarding websites that have not had a signifigant effect on the culture of the internet. This would allow sites such as Newgrounds, 4chan to be on here, but forbid something like [1] among others, because they are "Followers" in the trend game. However, small(er) websites that are not as "Notable" regarding the internet, even if their fanbase is enormous, are not permitted. There has been gigantic fights regarding HaloGen (game mod), even though it is rated in the top 5 of all Command and Conquer Generals mods, because it is not a causitive effect of any "notable" phenomenon. Logical2u 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Completely rewrite from a NPOV, and a POV that follows all wikipedia guideline, especially regarding those concerning site advertisement, article creation criteria, mainly due to the fact that...

1. The article is written pretty poorly right now, even though it has a nice little table and images.
2. The creator of the website and of the article are the same person, drawing signifigant flak regarding advertisement policies.
3. Insert pokemon offence here.
4. The site, at the moment, doesn't appear to have influence internet culture.

• Sincerely, Logical2u 23:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment What do you mean by the pokemon offence? I am happy to re-write the entire article, and/or get others to write it for me, I know plenty of people that would be happy to. Instead of posting irrelevant pokemon nonsense here, why not contribute to the article? Matt 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Pokemon defence is stating that a given subject to be deleted to more notable than one of the millions of pokemon. The pokemon offence is something random I made up. It was meant to be an injoke. I don't have the time (and I'm assuming others don't either) to completely rewrite the article while researching your site. Especially since it is apt to be deleted anyways. Logical2u 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Moture hasn't been mentioned in any other major articles, but I know many people will want to read this, for example many parents will have heard in the news that illegal music downloading is on the rise, and now all they have to do is point their children to moture, where they can get free legal music from unsigned artists. Another example is the musician community, who can upload and receive comments on their work, as well as creating a small page within moture with photos etc. of thier band. This site may not have a significant effect on the culture of the internet YET, but it may well do in the future, I'm sure very few sites have a significant effect on the culture of the internet, and yet you have hundreds of sites listed. Matt 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant advertisement. Fails WP:WEB. No penetration on Google or Alexa. Author still hasn't demonstrated notability. SubSeven 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no assertion of notability at all, and the site has less than fifty members. Samf-nz 00:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, it can be found in google http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amoture.co.uk&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Matt 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As I said before, it may have less than 50 members, but only 0.24% of visitors to moture actually register. Please read the other comments in this discussion before deciding to delete, Samf-nz. Matt 07:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DO NOT BASE MOTURE'S NOTABILITY ON IT'S LACK OF MEMBERS. 0.24% OF VISITORS TO MOTURE TAKE THE TIME TO REGISTER. Matt 21:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.Hoy (talk • contribs) .

Page's primary editor's (User:Matt.Hoy) second vote. First is seen above with similar comments and this was apparently unsigned in order to mask it? Logical2u 21:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Didn't realise I hadn't signed it. I voted "keep" again because my original one didn't count in the list, as it said 100% delete. But hey, believe what you want to believe, I see no point in voting twice. Matt 21:51, 7 June 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.