Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperShadow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 23:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SuperShadow

To some, this may appear to be a vanity article for the operator of a Star Wars rumor mill and fan-fiction website. Should this be deleted in accordance with the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy as a vanity page? Is there an appropriate place to merge this? No vote. --GRider\talk 18:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is important to warn people about this guy. As long as George Lucas is not doing anything about this guy, it is important, to inform people about this hoax LordofHavoc 13:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this page needs to be deleted so badly that it hurts.Gorrister 18:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Internet handles are not encyclopedic. Out of curiousity, why do you continue to phrase your nominations as questions when you know it pisses off a large number of people? Are you trying to intentionally spite them? Do you seriously think that phrasing as a question is a superior way to nominate? Or do you just enjoy being contrary? DaveTheRed 20:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. All the important things in it are unverifiable, according to the article itself. Almost certainly vanity. Notability not established by anything presented in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable net-loon. The whole point is that he talks cobblers. --Phil | Talk 12:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but modify: he is nuts, but people need to know that he's a fraud. This entry needs to be modified, though, as it is almost an entire copy paste of "About the REAL SuperShadow" website. - Tokakeke 8:45, March 30, 2005
  • Keep: This is not a vanity page by definition, since it affects a larger group of people, namely Star Wars fans. - J. Swift 7:59, March 31, 2005
  • Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial. Indrian 23:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but modify: As J. Swift said, Supershadow is something/someone that actively affects Star Wars fandom, not just some random fanboy with delusions. The man and his site are a constant cause of discussion and controversy among (online) Star Wars fans, and I can't think of any major SW website that hasn't written something about him (check out the external links), so I don't consider an entry on him to be 'vanity' (a somewhat paradoxical term when you consider what it actually says about him). However, it does need to be changed; the structure is really all-over-the-place, most of the subheadings about the sections of his site aren't really necessary. Colonelcraud 18:05, April 2 (EST)
  • Keep, out of all the star wars pages this is by far the most enclylopedic, as it describes something extrinisic to the plot. This is the exact opposite of the ghastly and horrible 7 styles of lightsabre fighting page which I believe it is a grand atrocity that it was allowed to be kept.
  • Keep as part of Star Wars culture. Not vanity. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - borderline nonsense, vanity, junk. CDC (talk) 17:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but modify: The guy is completely off his rocker. The problem is that some might not see this and will believe that he actually has the connections he claims to have. It would be good to see some improvements, though, as already mentioned. - Treesloth, 9:54 AM, 11 Apr 05
  • Delete as vanity. It doesn't have to be self-written to be considered vain. Radiant_* 18:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete he may be a famous crank, but outside of star wars fandom he's not notable.  ALKIVAR™ 19:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, for reasons stated. I think the article was much better before a lot of the information in the past 15 or so edits was added, and it certainly should be cleaned up. But it's notable, as others have stated. 5,080 Google hits, at least the first 6 pertain to this article.
  • Keep. A useful reference for anyone who wants background on this guy or just wants a good laugh. --DarthGroznii 15:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it is notable, Supershadow is a pretty controversial figure from what I have checked so far and this article explains that he is a fraud.--Milicz 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per above. Meelar (talk) 21:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is necessary so that Star wars fans won't be ripped off for money by this phony again. [[User:RM 21:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Above is not User:RM but 192.88.94.254's first edit. jni 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a hoot. It also could keep some people from being ripped off by this guy. Doug teh H-Nut (talk) 5:10 PM EST Apr. 15, '05
  • Keep - this page is about someone who actively influences star wars fandom
  • 'Keep'* To many people believe that SS is the real deal.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_SuperShadow_f2fe.html"