Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starmen.Net (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:46, 27 September 2008

Starmen.Net

Article was incorrectly nominated by Yoryx, so I am fixing it and relisting, Yoryx's rationale is found below, my nomination should not count towards "delete" Equendil Talk 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a sandbox for advertisement on an irrelevant information people can easily obtain themselves by visiting the site in question. The previous deletion discussion was on the basis that the site should stay for reasons unknown rather that by a solid reason for its own existence. As you can see from below, the people commenting that the article should be kept did not provide a sufficient explanation. Having 2800+ members is not noteworthy and by that reasoning, we should include NeoGaf, SomethingAwful, etc, into wikipedia? I hardly think not. If you also pay attention to some of the references that they're linking to, a couple of them are from sites identified as blogs (Kotaku, for example) and is not considered to be a reliable source of information. The other magazines are listed but there's no realistic way at the moment to verify the content. I am pushing for this article to be deleted and removed from Wikipedia. Yoryx (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Looks like another prior nomination was not done correctly either and was not mentioned on the discussion page, and there were two VfD nominations so this appears to be the sixth nomination. Prior nominations occured in that order:

Equendil Talk 09:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, sorry, I'm reverting that, article has been nominated and kept several times, and is currently going through AfD, let's not add a speedy deletion to that mess. Equendil Talk 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Also note the previous (fifth, at WP:Articles for deletion/Starmen.Net (2nd nomination)) nomination was closed as a "delete", no idea why the article was not deleted, I contacted the admin who closed the AfD. Equendil Talk 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the logs the article was rewritten and later restored based on the rewrite [1]. I have no opinion about the article but I thought that should be cleared up. --76.66.181.114 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, or speedy delete it if it hasn't changed significantly since the last consensus to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that due to the references and everything are enough to keep it in. After all, it's a large enough website to keep going. If we're going to delete this we might as well delete Zophar's Domain. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Equendil Talk 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Zophar's Domain which is visited by a wider demographic of people to Starmen.Net which is visited to a handful of people specifically interested in the game related to EarthBound is unjust and inaccurate. Note, Zophar's Domain is not in question in this deletion discussion, it's the Starmen.Net article we're talking about. Yoryx (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This site is plenty notable. 24.218.12.158 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)— 24.218.12.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Only edit by IP. Equendil Talk 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site is not "plenty" notable if I were to remove all the questionable references. You will likely to be linked to an incomplete/incoherent article as a result of that. This "Keep" should not be accepted on that basis. Yoryx (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I forgot to add, Starmen.Net has a "stonehenge" section on their site which includes all the data necessary to inform their members. By that reasoning, a wikipedia article is redundant. They have their own information, we can remove this advertisement and redundancy. Yoryx (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I give up. I friggin' hate how this place works. 24.218.12.158 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable video game website. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as first discussion closed as keep, this nominate it until it’s deleted nonsense is for the birds.--63.3.1.2 (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *<small>'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion|list of video game related deletions]]. [[User:MuZemike|MuZemike]] ([[User talk:MuZemike|talk]]) 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Delete'''. Non-notable video game website. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 19:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Speedy keep''' as first discussion closed as keep, this nominate it until it’s deleted nonsense is for the birds.--[[Special:Contributions/63.3.1.2|63.3.1.2]] ([[User talk:63.3.1.2|talk]]) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)