Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overclockers UK

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. Petros471 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overclockers UK

No advertising for small commercial enterprises on wikipedia please. Well I see the previous comment was deleted. I will repeat it, an article on a small and unremarkable computer company, particularly one that has a history of shoddy service, has no place in wikipedia. If the ocuk folding team is notable then make an article on the ocuk folding team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panoptic0n (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC).

This article has been written by people with a vendetta against Overclockers UK and its owner, Mark Proudfoot. Most of the data is incorrect and probably libelous. Do not believe what you read here. (Preceeding comment added by 82.69.11.153)

This AFD was incomplete Yomangani^talk 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• object, the Overclockers UK is a large internet forum, it is also notable for the fact that they came #1 in the SETI@Home classic project after it closed, the article also contains references to OcUK's members prevalance in online gaming. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 13:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose OcUK is a large company and community and deserves to be mentioned. --Hamish (Talk) 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

reply to above

How does ocuk 'deserve' to be mentioned? OCUK has no cultural relevance or academic notability, it is merely an internet forum (shrug) and a small business with a poor reputation. DELETE. - panoptic0n

It's forum has over 23,000 members, hardly small, as far as culture it has a large gaming and distributed computing community and is something people expect to see on Wikipedia. I don't see how having a poor reputation makes it less notable, surly it would make it nore notable if anything. --Hamish (Talk) 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that ocuk is something 'people' expect to see on wikipedia, it's a small company and a fairly popular pc forum, which only means something to hardcore pc enthusiasts. Any 'knowledge' of ocuk that could be gained by reading this page will no doubt already be known to anybody that uses the ocuk site. It serves as free advertising for the company nothing more. I think it needs to be established that personal enthusiasms should not be allowed to run riot in what is supposed to be an academic text. OCUK has no academic or cultural value whatsoever. Perhaps if the OCUK site or forums had created some kind of cultural phenomenon like Myspace etc. then they would be notable but they haven't, the shop is just a small commercial enterprise and the forums are a place where people go to talk about computers, current events etc., just like many other forums.- panoptic0n

• Vote for deletion As I menioned before if the OCUK folding team is notable make a seperate article, if indeed they can be said to be worthy of one. Also there are many 'large forums' and that does not warrant an entry in an academic text. The ocuk tag might be fairly well used in online gaming, but how does that warrant a mention in an encyclopedia? - panoptic0n
• Delete. Does not meet any of the three criteria for sufficient notability listed in WP:CORP. Does not provide "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. --Satori Son 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Satori Son, and note to closing admin: I would hedge on the side of deletion here, given the unsourced and very severe "criticism" section. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 15 September 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.