Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urank

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urank[edit]

Tagged for speedy delete and contested. Procedural nomination based on speedy nominators comment that it is a copyvio from http://www.freevistafiles.com/URank+URank-IE-toolbar-for-website-rating.html I offer no comment as to keep or delete. --VS ^talk 11:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the discussion page, the material in http://www.freevistafiles.com/URank+URank-IE-toolbar-for-website-rating.html, is opened under GFDL, an email was sent. Please do not delete.Amosygal (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and salt. Has been speedied twice at blatant advertising. McWomble (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO and is WP:SPAM. --Pmedema (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — even if the copied material is OK, it's still blatant spammery. However, I'm willing to give one more chance with the writing of an article without blatant advertising, so hold the salt. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rewriting the whole article, please wait with the deletion.82.81.21.185 (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's my best shot, take a look82.81.21.185 (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite in the article some independent and reliable sources that document this subject, so that editors and readers are able to verify that the article's content is accurate. All content must meet our basic verifiability policy. Tone is not enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Things may only be documented here after they have been properly documented out in the world at large, by identifiable people who are independent of the subject and who have reputations for fact checking and accuracy to protect. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no third-party references in the article, and I can't find any myself. VG ☎ 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't softpedia a third-party reference? It is third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if it's not good enough, can't the article stay with the appropriate tag?82.81.21.185 (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2008 (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.