Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:57, 26 August 2005

Stardestroyer.net (3rd VFD)

Vanity article Hambone 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (clarification: VfD nomination begun by User:Tanizaki (his 8th edit, after editing the article itself); nominating name replaced with non-existent user "Hambone" by 68.84.241.191. Sdedeo)

COMMENT: BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Neocapitalist 00:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote based on the article's merits and not on based on the people who support its existence here on Wikipedia. Being supported by meatpuppets is not a deletion criterion. (I would like to ask the closing admin to discount both meatpuppets and votes based on meat/sockpuppet support for their rationale.) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stardestroyer.net --Alan Au 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rank is currently: 271,789. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- What is this Alexa rank everyone keeps throwing out? I've never even heard of Alexa. It can't be that notable itself.Gateman1997 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stardestroyer.net. Delete, please. --Calton | Talk 00:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Again. How many times must we go through this, children? It is no vanity article, that has been established time and time and time again.Chardok (User has 8 contributions, 5 on SD.net VfDs and one vandalising User:Revprez - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Strong Keep Contrary to the opinions of a few, this page is not a vanity page. It has non-mmembers of SD.net contributing to it. It has information which directly attacks the culture of SD.net (which is definately not vanity related). SD.net is still a known site in relation to the STvsSW debate as well as Evolution vs Creationism. There is no rational reason to delete the page. It has survived two previous mailicious VFD attempts. Alyeska 00:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For reasons already mentioned. --Vagodin 01:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Obviously. Trollderella 01:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For crying out loud. If you don't like it, don't look at the page. --SpringheelJack (User has 7 contributions, 4 of which are on SD.net VfDs - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]
Note: I've made many contributions to wikipedia in the past, its only recently that I registered, because I've never voted for anything before here. I troubleshoot geology and science articles from time to time.SpringheelJack

Weak delete - can't see how this belongs in an encyclopedia --Doc (?) 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See the archive. Neocapitalist 02:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Since June 2005 User's only edits have been to SD.net VfDs - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep So Strong It's Adamantine Really. Three VFDs in three months, and this one's so illegal the joke's not funny anymore? I don't even have to go into the reasons why this article should stay (and why constantly nominating this article for VFD is pure butthattery and asininity), as they've been hashed and rehashed last VFD. E. Sn0 22:11, 24 August 2005 (CDT)
Vote stricken; User:E. Sn0 doesn't exist. R adiant _>|< 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep It's already survived two VFDs and I see no reason why its validity should suddenly change in the matter of a month. -Robgea 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (User has 55 edits: 26 article, 18 talk, 11 wikipedia. Nandesuka 03:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep The fact that it's survived several other VFDs should tell you something, people. Badme 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (User has 2 contributions, both to this VfD - the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep Here we go again . . . and again . . . and again. Look, folks, look at the talk page and article. It should be plainly apparent that the article is not a pro-site "vanity" article.GMT 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has ~40 edits, nearly all of which related to this article; 3rd edit was a vote to the previous VFD. R adiant _>|< 11:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)</small.

Merge All cruft articles on any wikispace until the end of time to this article since it appears to be the holiest site in all of Cruftistan or Cruftonia or wherever the cruftinators live, then Weak Keep that article, the million plus hits on this mecca of cruftdom make it for me. Also, did you mean adamantium, E. Sno? Good new adjective otherwise. Karmafist 03:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to multiple VfDs. Andrew pmk 03:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how "no census" equals "survived". It reads likes a bad resume, complete with a timeline of Wong's fan fiction and domain name purchases. Oh, and the traffic stats! Can someone make a case as to why the site merits an article other than "It's a ST v SW site"? st-v-sw.net did not have an entry last time I checked. Tanizaki
Delete, no consesus is not a "keep result: and this article is not encyclipedic.--nixie 04:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has 2500 members, but the sockpuppets and meatpuppets are too troubling, among other issues raised above --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for its own article. This and previous VfDs are plagued by sock/meatpuppets. Wikipedia is not an arena for your childish forum arguments. the wub "?/!" 08:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect against re-creation, note sockpuppetry keep votes. Proto t c 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Putting aside the issue of meatpuppets (And for the record, I will admit that I am a member of the forum, though I rarely post), I fail to see why that should mean that the arguements some of these people have made in support of the article should be ignored. The site seems more than notable enough for its own article, it's clearly not a vanity article as the creator of this VfD claimed, and if it's not encyclopedic, then I suggest the detractors work together with the supporters to turn it into an article which is, rather than delete out of hand. --Mukashi 10:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC) (as of this writing, 77 edits: 17 article, 49 talk + user talk, 11 Wikipedia. Nandesuka 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep This is just getting ridiculous. --DaveJB 11:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 3 VFD come on people. This article could be very important to some one confused (like I was) about what stardestroyer.net was about. The forum has over 2000 members and there is a wealth of information on multiple topics. Also the VFD was started by Tanizaki a user banned from SD.net for trolling. The VFD is revenge.Elfwood 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:WEB. (and please keep comments on the talk page). R adiant _>|< 11:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN, Vanity. --Botsie 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB standards. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells like teen vanity. Nandesuka 12:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would whichever admin closes this vote please note that votes are being solicited here, on their forums. Please be on the lookout for anon IPs and/or votes from people without many edits (whichever way they vote). Nandesuka 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't meet WP:WEB standards Sliggy 13:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:WEB. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:56, 2005 August 25 (UTC)WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I wouldn't vote on this article, but I want to cancel out one of the socks. "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded".--Scimitar ^parley 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Someone ought to nominate TrekBBS as well.Dottore So 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the notability. That thread doesn't make me all that sympathetic to their case, to say the least. --Apostrophe 17:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep for the third time. Come on people, it has only been 2 weeks since the last VFD on this article.Gateman1997 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no clue what's going on. The page is redirecting to itself and has apparently been deleted. Optichan 19:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like someone blanked it then created a redirect circle.Gateman1997 19:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'keep please this is a popular website not the gnaa Yuckfoo 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Redgrittybrick 21:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep About a third of the language is mine. --Rev Prez 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WEB is NOT Wiki policy, it is only a guideline being proposed for policy, as such it is not grounds to delete a article. Alyeska 21:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we put something at the top of the page telling people to read the discussion page before voting. I see many people saying that it isn't notable enough or that it does not meet WP:WEB after those concerns have been addressed already. --Vagodin 21:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever, with an Alexa rank in the middle of nowhere. Martg76 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What's with this whole Alexa thing anyway? No one uses it much at all. How about running a Google, Yahoo, MSN, or AOL (yuck) search for 'Star Wars vs. Star Trek' (First result on Google!) and 'Star Destroyer' (First again!)
  - CommentIf I enter good enough search criteria, I can make my own fansite come up as the first result on the TV show. Alexa is a site that reports the number of visitors to a site. Why not simply put a link to the site in a relevant article and be done with it? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Since people want to use rankings for the page. http://www.big-boards.com/highlight/355/ If you look at this, SD.net ranks within the largest message boards on the internet and is one of the most active messages boards on the internet with a member per post ratio putting it in the top-20. Alyeska 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Radiant above. —Charles O'Rourke 23:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Firstly, this VfD is a violation of VfD policy and therefore shouldnt even exist. Secondly, WP:WEB is only a guideline, not sufficient grounds for deletion. Thirdly, there are multiple forums that have wikipedia entries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacebattles.com being a perfect example of a very similar website. I am a banned member of stardestroyer.net (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=72553&start=175), and therefore I cannot be said to have any pro-SDN bias. In my expert opinion as a former member of SDN and longtime member of the broader versus community, I can say that SDN is noteworthy, it is in fact the most noteworthy of similar websites. PredatorX 11:24, 26 August 2005 (GMT+12) As of this writing, user has 6 edits, all on VfD. Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get an admin to close this VFD out. As you say it shouldn't exist.Gateman1997 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is the first time i have ever seen sock puppets too delete an article Keep--Aranda56 23:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC) <small(user has 59 edits, about half of which are on VfD. --Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
MURDER I fucking hate this fanboy sock puppet shit. -HX 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The Article serves it's purpose, and gives information about a website and forums, like many other articles. --kietotheworld 00:42, 26 August 2005 (GMT) (as of this vote, user has 3 edits. Nandesuka 03:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopaedic --Neigel von Teighen 23:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable--Cybren 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) --[reply]
- Note this user only has 12 edit and this is their first in 4 months.Gateman1997 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep. 3 VFDs in 3 months is nothing but a witch hunt. -- Iceberg3k 01:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep -- Another VfD? I'm not a fan of much of the SDN community (and no, I'm not a member, either), but it's a notable ST vs SW site. Ergbert 01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Yep, another one. Wikipedia is not the place for trolls to get petty revenge when they get banned. SAMAS 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep per Iceberg. This shouldn't have been renominated so soon, especially not by an anon. Oh well, at least it's got a SWW entry-LtNOWIS 03:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a Star Wars/Trek fan, but come on. An article about a minor website that speculates on which fictional government body is superior. This is a no-brainer. It's like 4th grade: "Superman can beat up Spiderman and my dad is bigger than your dad!" And a site with an Alexa Rating of 300K is not notable. -PlainSight 03:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SD.net is not a minor website on the ST vs SW debate. Furthermore, Mike Wong was listed as a source by none other then Curtis Saxton of the Star Wars tech database. Alyeska 04:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I dont see a valid reason to delete SD.nets entry from Wiki. Sounds like certain former members of SD's site are merely vindictive and spiteful. It's obvious why they were banned in the first place. Vendetta_SB 06:40, 26 August 2005 (GMT) (User has 5 contributions, 4 on SD.net VfDs - Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete. I agree, the website is not notable enough to merit their own article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For the same reasons given many times, this is merely a personal vendetta that has resulted in this most sad and pathetic attempt for "revenge", the wikipedia is not a place for personal politics. His Divine Shadow 06:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has ~10 edits. R adiant _>|< 08:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep I see no valid reason for the deletion of this article. It is both informative and provides good background information for those interested in the ST vs SW debate itself. --PuGGerCheese 08:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit. R adiant _>|< 08:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Notable forum, and should not have been renominated for deletion so soon. Academic Challenger 08:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. for various reasons, including those listed above and those posted before. Mike_Castaldo 09:46, 26 August 2005 (EST) 30 of this user's 31 edits are voting on Stardestroyer.net-related VfDs. His 1 article space edit was restoring a VfD notice on to an article. --Nandesuka 14:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both Star Trek and Star Wars are a significant part of our culture and the conflict between the Trekaholics and Jedi-wannabees is notable. It would appear that this site is a major part of that conflict. At best, one might make a case for merging this article into the Star Trek versus Star Wars article, but outright deletion is clearly inappropriate. Caerwine 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC) If no one's going to put a catty remark in small type next to my vote, I may as well do it myself. Caerwine 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)--62.252.0.7 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This isn't some minor website, it's the Star Trek vs. Star Wars resource. WayneC 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web forums trying to "defend" their listing on Wikipedia are tiresome. Merge into Star Trek versus Star Wars, but get rid of this flashpoint of pointless controversy. JesseW 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If people coastally putting up VFD was a reason to delete any page could be deleted by a single user putting up VFD after VFD. Multiple VFD is not a reason to delete. Elfwood 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - As mentioned above this is not a minor website making its own vanity page. --ERTW 21:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC) User's 6th edit. Flowerparty ^talk 21:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As has been said time and again in the repeated VfD's on this page, it is an important part of the ST vs. SW's scene and is more than worthy of note.--62.252.0.7 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 *'''Strong Delete.''' for various reasons, including those listed above and those posted before. [[User:Mike_Castaldo|Mike_Castaldo]] 09:46, 26 August 2005 (EST) <small>30 of this user's 31 edits are voting on Stardestroyer.net-related VfDs. His 1 article space edit was restoring a VfD notice on to an article. --[[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 14:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)</small>
-*'''Keep''': Both ''Star Trek'' and ''Star Wars'' are a significant part of our culture and the conflict between the Trekaholics and Jedi-wannabees is notable.  It would appear that this site is a major part of that conflict. At best, one might make a case for '''merging''' this article into the [[Star Trek versus Star Wars]] article, but outright deletion is clearly inappropriate. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC) <small>If no one's going to put a catty remark in small type next to my vote, I may as well do it myself. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Keep''': Both ''Star Trek'' and ''Star Wars'' are a significant part of our culture and the conflict between the Trekaholics and Jedi-wannabees is notable.  It would appear that this site is a major part of that conflict. At best, one might make a case for '''merging''' this article into the [[Star Trek versus Star Wars]] article, but outright deletion is clearly inappropriate. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC) <small>If no one's going to put a catty remark in small type next to my vote, I may as well do it myself. [[User:Caerwine|Caerwine]] 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)</small>--[[User:62.252.0.7|62.252.0.7]] 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Keep'''. This isn't some minor website, it's ''the'' Star Trek vs. Star Wars resource. [[User:WayneC|WayneC]] 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 **<small>If people coastally putting up VFD was a reason to delete any page could be deleted by a single user putting up VFD after VFD. Multiple VFD is not a reason to delete. [[User:Elfwood|Elfwood]] 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC) </small>
 *'''Keep''' - As mentioned above this is not a minor website making its own vanity page. --[[User:ERTW|ERTW]] 21:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC) <small>User's 6th edit. [[User:Flowerparty|<font color=ccdddd>Flowerparty</font>]] [[User talk:Flowerparty|<sup>talk</sup>]] 21:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)</small>
+'''Strong Keep''' As has been said time and again in the repeated VfD's on this page, it is an important part of the ST vs. SW's scene and is more than worthy of note.--[[User:62.252.0.7|62.252.0.7]] 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)