Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UO Razor

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. Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UO Razor

UO Razor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable. This software program is for a very niche user base and other more popular programs do not have Wikipedia pages. This was nominated for PROD but the tag was removed by an anonymous user with no explanation. BondGamer (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N not established. No independent references. -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for notability. It claims the program has all the features of UOAssist, which also doesn't have a page. RJC ^Talk 19:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I reviewed this to close it, and in addition to having only 3 users participate, the arguments made so far are extraordinarily weak. This discussion will need to include some attempt on the participants' part to find sources (other than in the existing article), and mention policy/guideline in arguments made. Argument of the variety: there is no article for X so there can't be an article about this are non-valid and must be ignored. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A search is turning up no reliable secondaries. I'm not clicking on any more since a boatload of them are crack/warez sites and I'm not getting internet herpes for the sake of an online tool which has been around long enough for interested parties to source. Someoneanother 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet more of them are just registered domains for sale. A flash through google news and books is providing nothing either, zero for news and 4 for books, none of which are relevant. Someoneanother 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This page was orphaned until October 2006 since its creation on Wikipedia when it received a single link from the Ultima Online article. It remained its only link until I recommended it for deletion. I don't know how else to establish the non-notability for this page. If it was notable, wouldn't more people be coming here to comment on it? - BondGamer (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry is asking those involved to check that reliable sources aren't just a few mouseclicks away is all, which is not unreasonable, hence why I had a look before commenting. Nobody had stated whether any attempt to locate sources had been made, articles do sometimes get deleted when sources are available just because nobody checked. Someoneanother 14:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete "very niche" is putting it kindly. Highly non-notable bit of software. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 17 January 2008 (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.