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 despite the intense sock/meatpuppeting, keep Urapopstar and delete URAPS Awards. howcheng {chat} 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urapopstar, URAPS Awards[edit]

The first link is non-notable, non-encylopedic, barely verifiable. Looks like fancruft. It is nearly incomprehensible, and does not justify its importance or its place within the encylopedia. You know, at least schools give their context within the community. The second one is just an even more ludicrous spinoff of the first one. It currently needs to prove its notability and place within this encyclopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 06:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited the article. Will now vote keep for Urapopstar, while delete for URAPS awards. Natalinasmpf 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete both as utter crap. 95% of the articles is useless, barely wikified data tables. Ral315 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i deleted vandalism (changed vote from delete to keep) by User:Singaporesux. furthermore, afd tag is being removed from article itself by User:Graffitimysoul. check edit history (and longevity/activity of voting users) carefully. Zzzzz 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - because I have no idea what this article is talking about, so here's a delete vote with a bunny on its head. FCYTravis 06:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy - Google search brings up nothing of substance. Incorrect spelling and capitalization on every line. Daykart 07:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it - Why should we delete it? It is a role play-esque game, and this is just an article on it. If it stays here, you're not going to die or anything.. GraffitiMySoul 09:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but it makes our encylopedia look unprofessional, and it's non-notable and possibly harms the encyclopedia with false information with fancruft. -- Natalinasmpf 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both best I can tell, they're vanity advertising for what amounts to a play-by-email game. The Literate Engineer 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it - It's just a page to catalogue the history of the game, which the players are very proud of and spend lots of time on. Just because certain people don't appreciate the game doesn't give you the right to try and delete the article about it. As you can tell by the external links, this game has been written up in other places, it has a big history behind it, and many dedicated members. I also find the term "fancruft" to be very offensive. Mahalia56 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's 17th edit;[1] the user's first, sixth, seventh, and ninth edits were to vandalize this page. The only edits in article space have been to the articles nominated above. Postdlf 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use the term "fancruft" sparingly. This article does not have a professional or neutral tone, and harms Wikipedia, and if not for other users by possibly providing a biased or possibly unverified point of view. The community owns the articles, not the individual. It may well be played in many other areas, but there are no third party references to verify, nor does it try to assert its notability neutrally. We do have the right to attempt to delete articles we genuinely think do not belong in Wikipedia, bad faith nominations are WP:POINT violations. This is clearly not the case. -- Natalinasmpf 03:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you exactly? And why are you so concerned? Mahalia56 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am an editor. I am a member of RC Patrol. Editors have the responsibility of improving Wikipedia through community consensus, and using requests for comment, which is what an afd is, in order to gauge community consensus about action. Why am I concerned? I am concerned with improving Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian. This is what a lot of Wikipedians do, by the way. -- Natalinasmpf 03:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you go around looking for pages to delete all day. Sounds like fun. Mahalia56 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not all day. It is to catch possibly defamatory articles that could damage the encylopedia and to catch vandalism. The wiki nature of Wikipedia makes this an obligation. Whether it is fun is an opinion. I treat it like an obligation. -- Natalinasmpf 03:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well we've spent lots of time editing this article, and for someone like yourself to come along and decide it should be deleted... it's disheartening to say the least. We're constantly trying to make it better as we are not yet Wikipedia experts. Also keep in mind not everybody's first-language is English. This experience has turned me off from Wikipedia. Mahalia56 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, trim and formalise the article. Make us understand what it actually is. Establish its notability. Use formal language. If people spend a lot of time on it, then surely, they can spend a lot of time making even better so it can be saved? Provide evidence of its impact on culture or the world. Then, yes, I will change my vote. I am sorry to hear you are discouraged, but Wikipedia is firstly an encylopedia. -- Natalinasmpf 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'll try our best. I've added two articles that were written about the game to prove its "world impact". Mahalia56 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would wikipedia be ruined? Isn't the point of wikipedia to put in information on a certain subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.52 (talk • contribs)

I vote to KEEP IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.52 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but the information must be factual, and be neutral. And then it must be verifiable, and notable. -- Natalinasmpf 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's verifiable on the Urapopstar website - www.urapopstar.cjb.net

That's the site in itself. That's not a reference, given that if you wrote about yourself, would one consider that writing neural and unbiased? Surely there would be some, therefore a third person view is preferred. -- Natalinasmpf 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine here's a compromise. Firstly, information has to be trimmed a bit, there's way too many tables with too little context. Secondly, until the awards ceremony doesn't have a huge impact, or at least it has a smaller impact that the Urapopstar concept as a whole. I suggest merging and redirecting the awards page to this one. Then cleanup is needed for the page. I will then vote weak keep. -- Natalinasmpf 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who added the Awards page. I've never performed a merge on here before, being fairly new but I am going to follow the instructions... Mahalia56 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is good. Glad things can be worked out. After the cleanup is done, I might urge the community to review their comments. -- Natalinasmpf 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already deleted out the "Celebrities" section as I felt it unneccessary. Since most of our users are in the United Kingdom time zone and aren't online at the moment, I will collaborate with them tomorrow to make cleanup changes to the page. Mahalia56 04:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it Sounds fair to me - I think the article itself should be kept, as it does describe a popular site, but maybe with some cleanup and merge/redirect. FreakyFlyBry 04:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user has been editing since 7 december 2005, primarily on this article. wikiguideline policy: "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly". Zzzzz 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can't even do an alexa check on this because it doesn't have its own website. It's no better than some fantasy football league. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some very rude people on here. We put too much effort into the website to be labelled as "no better than some fantasy football league". Mahalia56 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it's particularly rude IMO - that was just her honest opinion about it. It does become a debate. Generally the idea is to convince the community why the article should exist. Don't be too anxious, if everything is cleaned up nothing should happen. I don't appreciate however, your friends vandalising my talk and user pages. -- Natalinasmpf 04:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the behaviour. I've asked them to stop. Mahalia56 05:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - News coverage argues for, the extremely unencyclopedic manner in which the article is written needs to be fixed. For starters, excise all the listcruft. Delete the "URAPS Awards" article entirely. FCYTravis 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it would be a good idea for the URAPS Awards entry to be deleted. Mahalia56 05:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable online game. Zzzzz 08:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• god's sake it's just a game. get over it you sad little people who have nothing better to do than try and delete somebody's page on a website. you're pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singaporesux (talk • contribs)

• Keep it Don't be a bunch of saddos and appreciate there's been a lot of work put into this article. It's okay for you lot to sit there and say 'what a load of turd, get rid of it' but you haven't actually worked on the masterpiece.
• You call them sad? HA. People who aren't sad have better things to do than wander around on Wikipedia and deem whether certain articles are necessary or not. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.30.166 (talk • contribs)

Are there better ways of removing vandalism and deleting possibly detrimental articles? You tell me. It is very likely I will vote keep for this article, anyhow. The idea is to determine consensus by calling an requests for comment for deletion, which is what afd is. -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some people on here seriously need to get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.178.205 (talk • contribs)
• Delete both per above reasoning, notwithstanding that it's doing "fantastically." Postdlf 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will urge you to reconsider your vote later on, after the article has been cleaned up and proves its notability. Don't vote delete just becaue there are kafirs who can't know better. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 14:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons stated by Zoe. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:14, Dec. 23, 2005
• I have copyedited the article. I may consider taking some parts of the history totally, unless some people can find a better way to provide a neutral tone. Reconsider your votes. -- Natalinasmpf 14:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No change in my vote. The article still does not provide any proof of notability beyond a brief reference in print media and a review in an online paper. No verification is provided for the article's bald claim that it has received "a large amount of web traffic." Most of the article is nothing but a summary of what happens on the "pop charts" within its fictional world, without that context even being consistently clear. It reminds me of the cruft we've been forced to repeatedly delete that documented message board flamewars as if they were a topic worthy of Ken Burns. Postdlf 19:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zoe. —Locke Cole 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.