Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.ufck.org

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. – Robert 00:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.ufck.org

Vanity page for a non-notable website; sadly not speedyable. Delete and drop a note here if you'd like. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 05:58:24Z

• Delete Entry was also not created by the admin/owner of the domain (me). It would be cool if we deserved a wiki entry, but we're not that cool. Whelck 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep- Obviously not vanity as was created by someone not associated by the board at all.BBwoman1 06:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This users intentions are very clear from his entries on my talk page. This entry and the random entry about Venskus are irrelevant. Whelck 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAIN. Vanity articles are those created by people who try to promote entities which they are a fan of or give them excessive praise. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa has it ranked relatively low, and the consistency of that ranking indicates the only reason it has a ranking at all is because one frequent visitor of the site has the Alexa toolbar. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JHMM13 Alexa rating. More attack than promo. Funny, but not worth keeping. Herostratus 08:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable forum. I suggest that User:BBwoman1's vote is ignored because of his/her gratuitous personal attacks on User:Whelck's talk page. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Nobody cares what an UFCK is, it shouldn't be on here
• Delete From WP:WEB "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community". There is no mention of the forum having an impact beyond its own community, and it would seem by its own admission parts of the forum have little impact on others. The article is POV, if there is some proof of impact (verifiable third-party proof) then the article needs to be cleaned up. DeathThoreau 15:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable forum. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DeathThoreau. Stifle 14:41, 12 December 2005 (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.