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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urapopstar

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The two passing mentions cited are insufficient for passing either WP:NVG or WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The scotsman has me veering towards No true Scotsman in that the piece doesn't have an author on the byline. The Guardian piece (or observer?) is a very brief piece. looking at URAPS Wiki I don't see much more in sourcing (other than ourselves). The forum and [https://twitter.com/urapsofficial?lang=en twitter are dead. And I can't find much else in terms of sourcing - so fails WP:SIGCOV. I would expect sources to be online - this is from the internet age (an online game from the aughts). Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (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.