Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - when all levels of meatpuppetry are ignored, the Wikipedian community has shown a consensus opinion. FCYTravis 03:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stardestroyer.net (3rd VFD)

Delete Vanity article. In the alternative, merge into existing ST v. ST article. Tanizaki 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Of this user's 64 edits, 52 are on this VfD, 3 on the TrekBBS VfD and 6, are on his and other's talk pages, talking about these VfDs. This accounts for 61 of his 64 (95.3%) contributions as of this writing.)--Vagodin 03:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Neocapitalist 00:20, 26 August 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) )
  • 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)
  • Strong Keep For reasons already mentioned. --Vagodin 01:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • 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) )
  • Weak delete - can't see how this belongs in an encyclopedia --Doc (?) 01:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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) )
  • 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))
  • 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) )
  • 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)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)
  • 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)
  • Keep due to multiple VfDs. Andrew pmk 03:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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. TanizakiSee vote immediately following nomination. Nandesuka 12:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no consesus is not a "keep result: and this article is not encyclipedic.--nixie 04:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete and protect against re-creation, note sockpuppetry keep votes. Proto t c 08:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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))
  • Strong Keep This is just getting ridiculous. --DaveJB 11:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete, WP:WEB. (and please keep comments on the talk page). Radiant_>|< 11:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, Vanity. --Botsie 11:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Smells like teen vanity. Nandesuka 12:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as doesn't meet WP:WEB standards Sliggy 13:02, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Delete. per above. Someone ought to nominate TrekBBS as well.Dottore So 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 'keep please this is a popular website not the gnaa Yuckfoo 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep About a third of the language is mine. --Rev Prez 21:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever, with an Alexa rank in the middle of nowhere. Martg76 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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))
  • MURDER I fucking hate this fanboy sock puppet shit. -HX 23:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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))
  • Delete. Nonnotable--Cybren 01:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Note this user only has 12 edit and this is their first in 4 months.Gateman1997 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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) )
  • Delete. I agree, the website is not notable enough to merit their own article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)User has ~10 edits. Radiant_>|< 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)User's only edit. Radiant_>|< 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)
  • 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)
  • 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) -meow-
  • Strong Keep. This isn't some minor website, it's the Star Trek vs. Star Wars resource. WayneC 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. (forgot to log in) --Fearghul 23:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 11 edits Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The VfD is baseless. Various reasons for deletion are without sufficient arguments. --Yenchin 04:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC) 6 edits Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 04:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see how this article is not notable. 郵便箱 05:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC) User has 86 edits total, 43 of which are in the article space. --Nandesuka 12:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Three VFD's and it's still here, there is no reason for this vote. Urger5:01 EST 27 Aug 2005 7 edits Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This VFD crap is getting ridiculous and abused. If it passes this VfD, I request that the page be protected. BTW, I'd admit it up front before some idiot slanders me. I'm a member of SDN, true. But I've also been on Wiki for a full year and have made about 76 edits in all. I just don't post a lot. If you ever find me on SDN you will also notice the number of posts as being disproportionately low to the time I've been a member (continued below).
This will be the 77th and the first I bothered to waste on a VfD. The website it describes is a cardinal one in the STvsSW debate on par with the SWTC (which no one tries to delete so far, I think) and the USVSD (which AFAIK does not have its own article here). Since we decided to have a STvsSW debate article, the discussion of the topic would hardly be complete without a strong mention of this site. The article should be expanded, not deleted (continued).
Whether this is "vanity" should not come into it. If the article is about a useful topic, it stays. If not, it goes. If it has the improper tone ("vanity"), negotiate the edits. That's all. Kazuaki Shimazaki 02:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC) only four edits in the last two months. Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC) So, if you can't get me for the total, you'd only count my Recents? Hmm...
  • Keep and Protect I have carefully examined the guidelines that recommend against vanity pages at Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines in comparision to the page in question. Stardestroyer.net has a large amount of information on technology used in the two fictional universes, as well as some information on general science issues. Given the popularity of these two franchises (how many Americans don't know who Darth Vader and Captain Kirk are?), this information would likely be of interest to many. This site can also be a rough environment for those just entering, and some forewarning is appropriate. I myself do not like the environment present at the site, and do not participate in the forum there whatsoever. However, the philosophy behind wikipedia is free access to information, even about topics we find disagreeable. If SD.net is controversial, then its article should be edited to ensure impartiaility, not deleted - an activity practiced extensively in that page. As for my use of Wikipedia, I browse it frequently, but I seldom edit, for I usually find the author has adequately covered the subject, and any additional information is unnecessary. OmegaPaladin 07:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC) New votes go at the bottom. My apologies - OmegaPaladin This user has 7 edits. Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. I would agree with above comment that there are other similar articles worthy of consideration on the same grounds. Balancer 14:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User's 30th edit or so, many of them being to all 3 VfDs Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC) 4 are on the VfDs for this article, but 13 belong to the Star Trek versus Star Wars article, worth noting as related. Vote was 29th edit as this particular registered user.Balancer 16:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Protect. There is no good reason for this page to be deleted. Having survived 2(or is it three?) VfDs in the recent past, the suspect nature of the user who started the VfD, and the fact that Star Wars and Star Trek are well known franchises, and that SD.net is well known in the Versus community, it should be kept, and protected to prevent further vandalism from those bearing grudges.
In the case that the article be deleted, I will request that the STvSW.com article be deleted for the same reasons. And feel free to attempt to discount me simply because I'm new, and not a member of SD.net. --NoXion 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User's first edit Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. The original article stands. The reason it's being deleted, or attempted to, is because the person asking for the deletion is just trying to cause trouble. The site's fine, the article is fine, he is just wasting your time because he was banned from the we-board and now he's here trying to0 s**t-stir. Ignore him.WeyounTDB 22:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC) User has 10 edits, 6 of them being to the TrekBBS VfD and this one Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The article is nothing but a vanity article promoting a web site. The points above that the site covers material that would be of interest to many is beside the point. Those other subjects should be well covered by WP. The question here is, should there be an article about this web site on WP. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and an article on a web discussion forum has no place in an encyclopedia. --DavidConrad 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolute KEEP & Protect This articles deserves to remain!Urizen 00:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC) User's 13th edit Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This VfD is obviously a personal vendetta, and in any case repeated VfDs are a violation of Wikipedia policy. WyldStallionRyder 08:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) User's fourth edit. Radiant_>|< 09:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. The RickK Threshold of Sockpuppetry has clearly been exceeded and in any case, this is a textbook definition of nnanity. There's jillions of forums with '2,000" members. FCYTravis 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can name each of those sockpuppets on the discussion page, and provide your evidence that they are sockpuppets. After all, sockpuppetry is a bannable offense, so you must have strong evidence to back up your claims.
      • Ug.... sockpuppets in and of themselves are not a bannable offense. If you use a lot of them to influence votes for example you might get blocked for a couple days. Meatpuppets, which is what we are talking about here, is not bannable at all (they just don't count on VfD). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Stardestroyer.net2_4af1.html"