Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Go Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Go Server

Online Go Server (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-27 07:30Z

  • Delete - nn game server, crufty, unreferenced. Game servers are non-notable. MER-C 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Jayden54 10:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete number of users fails WP:WEB and it's not verifiable to boot. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • References have been added
    • The first two reference links don't work for me. No added information there.-- Ben 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You must have an account on the site to view the information. Is there any other way I can prove the information is correct?--Jonpro
  • Speedy Delete webspam. All the provided links are to the same place - guess where? B.Wind 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The links are to the same place because that is the only place that has information about the site. This article would provide another such place.--Jonpro 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If the only source of information on the web site is the web site itself, our WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. The places for never-before-published documentation of a web site are books, magazine articles, and so forth. Uncle G 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - What part of WP:WEB does this meet, exactly? -- Ben 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the user counts were verifiable without an account, all they prove is that the site isn't particularly notable: 100 active users is a long way from significant. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright, I agree with everyone. Please excuse the ignorance of a beginner :)--Jonpro 16:36, 28 November 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.