Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Resistance

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. JIP | Talk 06:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Resistance

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Links to website and forum have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.97.113 (talk • contribs)

No assertion of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. Fightindaman 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete this page. —This unsigned comment was added by 134.124.97.113 (talk • contribs) .

This user has only 3 edits, all in the article in question, some vandalism: [1] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom, no assertion made, site not even linked to. Probable forumcruft. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as non-notable website, ranks 106,199 on Alexa though it does have 87,000 Google results [2], some of which are relevant. By the way, its interesting to note that a UK Resistance wikicity does exist [3] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to low alexa ranking. --BWD ^(talk) 22:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dont delete. 2071st most popular Blog, respected by industry professionals—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeontech (talk • contribs)
• Don't delete, has been going since 1996 (therefore one of the first blogs in existence), very well-known and respected in the British games industry, with large cult audience—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.142.162 (talk • contribs)

• The above two votes appear to be very similar (in that they are both unsigned votes with "Don't Delete" instead of the customary "Keep"). There is the possibility that these two votes are in fact the same user or editors who don't normally contribute to Wikipedia. joturner 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because it is dumb.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethiophile (talk • contribs)
• Delete forumcruft. Take out the vanity namechecks and there is nothing here. Just zis Guy you know? 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Dont delete. Read by the entire UK video game publishing/develpoment community. The only honest voice in UK gaming—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.102.209 (talk • contribs)
• Dont delete. 'Forumcruft'? (Personal attack removed) - Spud —This unsigned comment was added by 212.56.100.123 (talk • contribs) .
• Dont delete. Very informative and funny website, needs more exposure - DIAC —This unsigned comment was added by 134.124.116.172 (talk • contribs) .

• The above three votes are very similar. Two of them are unsigned and one is an anon. In my opinion, they should be discounted. joturner 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. UK Resistance is pretty well-known (and respected) in the gaming community. I can definitely see people looking it up in an effort to discover more about the site. --Hn 01:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Khoikhoi 02:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, meatpuppet supported. --Rory096 02:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; non-notable website. joturner 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Web, forumcruft, NN Dbchip 06:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB, forumcruft; the puppetry didn't convince me otherwise, shockingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, it's not puppetry, the site is well known and has been covered numerous times in the gaming media. There are a large number of *different* people posting here, however they are all from the site's forum which is an absolute trainwreck. If anything the site deserves credit and yes, there will be people researching it. But these people want it noticed for entirely the wrong reasons. Snobbery from both the forum regulars and signed in Wikipedia members has become extremely irritating in this debate - all your perspectives are skewed and I'm just trying to be an impartial observer here.—This unsigned comment was added by 219.188.179.186 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep If you have an Old Man Murray page on Wiki then you must have a UK:R page. OMM isn't even updated anymore and still came after UK:R which was the first "comedy" videogames site. —This unsigned comment was added by 86.143.151.170 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep notable for starting small campaigns every once in a while, like the blue sky one. The article does need some work, though. —This unsigned comment was added by 213.35.135.215 (talk • contribs) .
• Comment Look the forum members are hardly helping their cause, but I don't appreciate Wikipedians who have done no research on the subject whatsoever voting on it. The site has been cited by bloggers for The Guardian [4], Wired [5] as well as in numerous printed gaming publications, and has even spawned imitations. [6] Obviously this isn't going to do much good seeing as half the Wikipedia's already jumped in all ready with their Delete votes, but this does demonstrate how flawed the VfD process is. --Hn 10:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given that (and the alleged but unicted mention already in the article) if somebody could rewrite it so that it made it clear that it met WP:WEB, and didn't list unencyclopedic things like members and how they title threads in the forum, then I'd change my vote. Fightindaman 16:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and (as it stands) unencyclopedic. In other words, forumcruft. --kingboyk 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not some minor fansite, it's been around for years and has been copied endlessly by other sites listed in wikipedia, it's the original and quite possibly the best. The forum shouldn't even be mentioned as it's not really relevant to the main site. This article is extremely poorly written and should be redone from scratch, maybe by someone who's actually bothered to 'read' the site. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, the influence of UK:R is undoubtable - Thus it should have an entry. --220.240.72.131 05:00, 25 March 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.