Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo Fleet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus.

I count 5 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (one anon and one suspiciously new user discounted) and 1 "abstain". Azathar is incorrect in his/her assertion that the AFD discussion automatically stops after 5 days. Discussion may continue up until an admin has time or volunteers to close the discussion. That may happen no sooner than 5 days but, due to the backlog, often lasts longer. (Sometimes much longer. The current backlog of only a week is remarkably good.) Late comments are still counted as long as they are fact-based and made in good faith. Rossami (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo Fleet

Bravo Fleet is a wikipedia entry about a Star Trek simulation/role playing group. I'm nominating it for Deletion. Deletion Precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." As a website, it fails all three WP:WEB guidelines, a Traffic Rank of 1,907,000, only 10 incoming links, [1], less than 5,000 members (around 1,500 total), and no verifiable impact in the national news media. [2] [3]. I'm sure its a great community - but it's not notible enough to warrant an entry by any current policy or guideline. its home is at Memory Alpha - The Star Trek Wiki. Agnte 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It doesn't belong at MA - that's for onscreen factoids only - as Bravo Fleet extrapolates and contains non-canon elements (such as ship designs), it would be deleted at MA. As for its position on WP... It's true that it appears to fail to meet the targets you specify, but I believe that it is seen by many as the most notable group in Star Trek RPG (and I am not a gushing fan and member in case you were wondering :) ). The group creator has been interviewed by About.com, appeared on I-SciFi and the group was featured in the book, "The Incredible Internet Guide for Trekkers." Given these references, plus others and the fact that Wikipedia is (as always, it seems) reviewing what constitutes "noteworthiness," I'd just lean over towards keeping. This is clearly not Microsoft visability level, but I feel it is notable to the online & Trek community, both of which are large groups of people. - Hayter 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• So the info in this article wouldnt get on MA because it's too close to fan fiction? (effectively) Agnte 17:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I understand it, and I've only been editing at MA for a short time, the wiki takes no notice of fan groups. Character developments and the like that are seen in non-canon novels are often mentioned at the foot of a page under an 'Apocryphal' section, but sheer fanon (I hate that term) is ignored entirely. So no mention of the USS Extramazing NCC-1023141 or anything of the sort. - Hayter 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.nn web group.Gateman1997 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hayter makes good points, but I've never heard of it outside the Trek community.--SarekOfVulcan 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, Hayter, you've convinced me. Keep--SarekOfVulcan 14:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SarekofVulcan. Just not notable enough.--Kalsermar 19:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's one of the premier RPG groups that has a large cult following within the trek community. 24.177.68.145 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hayter. -- JJay 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hayter. In addition, I don't think that a lack of notability is sufficient reason in itself to warrant deletion. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Following the discussion on the deletion of a similar article, I decided to withdraw my vote. I'm still in favour of keeping, but I'm too biased and I don't think I've been on Wikipedia long enough for my vote to count. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And lack of notability is sufficient reason for deletion. Please consult WP:NOT, and WP:WEB, which tries to formalise what web-related cruft does justify an article, and what does not. This fails WP:WEB, ergo, bye bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proto (talk • contribs).
  • Yes it was. Whoops. Proto t c 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm familiar with WP:NOT and WP:WEB. I'm also familiar with WP:N. For me, lack of notability is not sufficient reason for deletion. For most other Wikipedians, it is. However, this is not the place to discuss that issue. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I've just finished looking at some similar afd's (one of which was nominated by myself), have checked the Bravo Fleet site and forums and have reconsidered my position. First, Bravo Fleet (the website) merely serves as a hub for the simming group itself. The majority of 'business' conducted concerning the group is not seen here. I don't mean the emails that relay back and forth with any co-maintained website, but this. Bravo Fleet rules state that every individual game must have its own website. Looking at the group's posted stats, that's 186 websites. Add to this forums and posting groups and the numbers suddenly shoot up. We can't measure the combined visibility of these websites and they probably don't deserve their own articles, but there's no denying they add to the totals presented for Bravo Fleet, given that they are subserviant to it. As well as this, on Wikipedia's notability page for websites, it is stated that with regards to (sign up & read) forums, that a total post count totalling three times the user count is 'good.' The BF forums have a post count that is 64 times the member count. Now I feel this method of judgement is somewhat lacking, but Wikipedia adheres to it and so it should be considered. The page also cites An established comic or site which has set a trend eg. Bob and George, while not the first sprite comic, did inspire many others. This seems to fit Bravo Fleet rather accurately. It was not the first Star Trek RPG group (its own history confirms that "Tango Fleet" is at least a year older) but many ST RPG groups seek to mould themselves in Bravo Fleet's image i.e. a large 'fleet' containing multiple 'task forces' and games. The closest written example to hand I have is taken from Expansion Fleet,

A Feedback/Suggestions forum is opened for all members to discuss freely their ideas and suggestions. This initiative proves succesfull and the idea is born to turn Expansion into something bigger and creating various divisions, similar to the style of Bravo Fleet and Tango Fleet.

Also note that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding website notability are often ignored in individual cases. I have no intention of extensively debating the suitability of these guidelines (as I find them to be largely unobjectionable) or defending this article, but given that the above strengthened my mind on the issue, it may be that it affects others. Clearly piece by piece these 'loopholes' if you want to call them that, don't seem much and don't warrant inclusion by themselves, but there are clearly a number of them in this case making this (I feel) an exception to the general rules. - Hayter 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Hayter. Harrias 00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems quite notable and while I'm not sure it meets WP:WEB, I'm invoking WP:IAR. Stifle 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP I'm a senior member of BF, to be honest, but this group has been around for 8 years, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using WP:NOT, We're not a paper encyclopedia, so, why can't we have a topic like this. Is it hurting anyone by keeping it there? I'm sure you can tell that I am an Inclusionist. Its not slanderous, its verifiable, and we have kept sites that are just as non-notable before. Also, I don't see how it meets the WP:WEB standard: It has won web design awards, and has been included in a book on Star Trek and the creator has been interviewed a couple of times. Also, I'd like to see some definitive reasons it is considered a vanity site WP:VAIN. Is it enough to say it doesn't meet a number thresh-hold (WP:WEB) and that it is vain (WP:VAIN) without citing why?--Azathar 14:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that if any website like this deserves an article on WP it would be Bravofleet but it still doesn't imho. No, it won't hurt anyone if it is kept but neither would it hurt anyone if I put up an article about myself or my own website (which has quite a few number of visitors from around the wordl) yet it still wouldn't be right and is not a reason to keep. Also, the fact that other non-notable sites have articles is not a reason to keep this non-notable site. Two "wrongs" do not make a right. ("Wrongs" is probably not the right word but you know what I mean hopefully.) I just don't see how Bravofleet is encyclopedic and how it has made any impact on anyone not directly involved with it.--Kalsermar 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well Kalsermar, you're entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. If we remove BF, then we should start removing articles about a whole bunch of websites. You're right, 2 "wrongs" do not make a "right", so, by your logic, we should be combing all over Wikipedia and AfD'ing a whole bunch of articles on various websites that don't meet your criteria for worthiness in Wikipedia, but may meet some one else's. Granted, that is the point of all this, to gain a consensus, but still, it's better to keep an article then delete one.--Azathar 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No, we should not "comb all over Wikipedia" but when I come across a similar article I will nominate it for AfD. AfD discussions are done on the merits of each nomination if and when they come up and should never be based on what other articles might or might not be out there that may or may not be less worthy of inclusion if the article under consideration is deleted. Compare it loosely with a judge who presides over a traffic offence hearing when it is brought before his court and who does not stand on an intersection seeing who else might be doing the same thing and not be ticketed and thus meriting not fining the case he presides over.--Kalsermar 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that this group has attracted attention of about.com and a book about Trekkers on the Web (per Hayter) seems to be enough to give it notability. Moreover, it seems to be the largest or one of the largest and one of the longest running Trek RPGs on the web. - Jord 17:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• After going over the AfD rules, this should have ended on the 26th of December. Discounting the Keeps/deletes after the 26th of December still gives this 5 KEEPS and 4 DELETES and 1 ABSTAIN. According to Wikipedia:Consensus, a 2/3rd majority should be used for AfD's, and this by no means has a 2/3rd majority to delete. This AfD should be closed and archived as such. I am recommending to a SysOp such procedure be done.--Azathar 18:48, 31 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.