Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.252.0.7 (talk) at 23:57, 26 August 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

  • 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 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
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 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]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 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]
  • 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]
  • 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 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, NN, Vanity. --Botsie 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
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]

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]

  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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. Radiant_>|< 08:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • 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 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net2&oldid=21920815"