Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 speedily deleted per CSD G4. Mushroom 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Fleet

Non-notable web forum/game. Fails WP:WEB (see also the Talk page). Keeps being recreated, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

keep The discussion page of the article on Expansion Fleet clearly lists various arguments why this nomination for deletion is not only invalid, but also why it is notable enough. Attempts of Deletionists discourage various contributors to Wikipedia, and therefore are not complying to user regulations of Wikipedia whereby their votes should weigh in this vote to a minority only. Aneirin 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The discussion there shows actually that this is a speedy by CSD G4. Kusma (討論) 14:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Alexa finds this gaming forum page but has no information about its level of traffic, which is not good. Aneirin, caution, there are no legally-binding user regulations for AfD, only an emergent consensus. Ruby 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The "not notable" argument is not valid here. It is only valid in case of bio's, which this article is certainly not. The grounds for deletion of this article are therefore invalid (even more than before so). Aneirin 15:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please show how the article meets WP:V and WP:WEB by citing sources independent from [1], see WP:RS. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, Aneirin, the "not-notable" argument covers blogs, newsgroups, webforums, chatrooms, bands, genres, clubs, you name it. Ruby 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Why is wikepedia all articles about the NOD? it seems like a personal attack. During the last few days i've seen 4 articles up for deletion. All members of the NOD... There is no real reason to delete them. You're website is supposed to be a encyclopaedia about different subjects. If you do not aknowledge an aspect of something i don't think you are entitled the name "encyclopaedia" Ravenlady 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only contributions are to deletion discussions related to David Dom and his friends. Kusma (討論) 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Attempts for further discrediting votes is unacceptable and should not weigh upon this vote. Aneirin 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Expansion Fleet has been linked to, credited, suggested and talked about by people other than the owner, at

http://www.gamewyrd.com/others/cyber517

http://startrek.pagina.nl/

http://gamiespelen.eigenstart.nl/

http://www.mountsutro.org/index.php/linkage/

http://elindelwolf.iblogs.com/

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17955.html

Awards that Expansion Fleet received:

http://www.trekconnection.com/awards/tcaward.asp

http://www.jupiter-station.com/JuPAwardBanners05.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/me4/jaddziadax/page11.html

More awards Expansion Fleet received can be seen on the website itself:

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=ewards

Additionally, there is the Expansion Fleet online store:

http://shop.expansionfleet.com/shop.php

http://www.cafepress.com/expansion

And also additionally, Expansion Fleet is linked to the IRC server mystical.net (through expansion.mystical.net):

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=irc

http://www.mystical.net/

Those who voted delete for non notable hereby are proven that they only voted on the basis of "I'm too lazy to investigate myself so I'll vote delete because I never heard of it". Notability is a POV argument and therefore invalid. Aneirin 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • That is all? Thank you for proving my point that it is indeed speedily deletable as A7 in addition to the G4. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your reaction was as expected, proving my point that no matter which (clear!) evidence would be available, it would be turned down. Therefore, this proves your incompetence and your votes will not weigh upon the decision. Aneirin 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Aneirin, AfD is only about the content of the article, no one is making a personal attack on the author and no one expects to receive personal attacks when the article is being reviewed. Ruby 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Why are you guys against spreading of free information? I mean, it´s not like it is racist or something. I would really like some answeres on why you delete this article. Is it becouse it is not a christian site? Or is it just becouse you have decided you do not like belgians?

How "free" is this encyclopedia anyway?81.233.40.57 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I smell dirty sockpuppets. Ruby 18:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The comment I received on my notable references is clearly offending, which is not allowed due to the "dont bite the newcomers" policy. It seems I'm getting more and more reasons to declare the nomination invalid. Also, the deletion policy does not mention notability, therefore my references were not even necessary and expansionfleet.com is sufficient as a reference. Aneirin 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP To delve into it being questioned as notable or not, if it has not been added or known, this site has 2 books published about it, one 360 pages, the most recent 546 pages. Other than that, what is such the problem with keeping Expansion up? One would think there are better things to do with time. Users submit the knowledge to share existing things with the world. I look now and see The Free Encyclopedia. Let Expansion Fleet be free information to the world. - Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Which books? Please provide sources. Kusma (討論) 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP Keep this Article. Expansion Fleet is a good and very famous role playing community and it deserves to be here. Keep this Please. Expansion Fleet is amazing.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.92.95 (talk • contribs) .

Books Expansion Yearbook 2 Expansion Yearbook 1-Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB. Clearly the site is well-loved by a few, but this is a general-use encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep84.65.63.156 18:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Does not provide any evidence of notability. Alexa has no data on the site and shows only three other sites linked to it. But somebody sure wants to keep this page up; sock-puppets galore. I smell self-promotion. — RJH 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable game. Following Wikipedia procedures is NOT deletionist. SycthosTalk 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: By the way, Expansion Fleet is trying to usher votes into this AfD page from their home page. See the message below:

The article of Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia.org is currently under a hot debate to be deleted. Some "Deletionist" Admins of Wikipedia claim it is "non notable" because they personally don't know it, and attempt to delete it repeatingly at what obviously appears to be a personal attack on anything that doesn't float their boat.

Please help ups keep the article on Wikipedia, by voting "keep" at this URL:

[2]

You can do so by going to the URL above, clicking "Edit this page" and then adding (at the bottom of the already posted text) the following line:

'''keep''' any comments here ~~~~

And click "save page" on the bottom.

This needs to be done ASAP if we are to crush the corrupt abuse of the Wikipedia policies by its admins.

Please also consider signing our petition against Wikipedia corruption:

[3]

Thank you for your support!
Keep in mind that the AfD page is not vote-based, and comments from new or unregistered users are most likely discredited entirely. SycthosTalk 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I can only see the above inflammatory commentary incensing some AfD'ers, and making a delete vote more likely. Why the site owners place such importance in their small wikipedia article I fail to understand, unless it is a certain lack of maturity. An unfortunate circumstance. :) — RJH 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Another power tripped attempt to falsely discredit the article and the votes to keep. No such announcement is visible on the website. Aneirin 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment It was there. I saw the announcement too and was about to report it as meatpuppetry but Sycthos beat me to it. Ruby 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Due to the fact that the unprofessional behavior of Deletionist admins has proven Wikipedia to be unworthy for an article of Expansion Fleet, this article has been deleted by me. Do with my comments as you wish. False accusations and discrediting is highly unprofessional. Goodbye. Vorak 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Please do not blank an article being discussed for deletion. Ruby 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment As author of this article and copyright owner, I withdraw this article from Wikipedia and deny Wikipedia the use/publication of this article in any form. Please remove immediately. Vorak 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Once you submit information to Wikipedia, others have the ability to edit to their heart's content. You do not own the article, Wikipedia does. The information cannot be revoked. SycthosTalk 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Expansion Fleet has changed its message to attempt to disprove all arguments against the article and to directly launch a futile attack against Wikipedia:

After various deletion attempts, Wikipedia deletionist admins have attempted to discredit this website in various ways. Expansion Fleet has hereby withdrawn its article, no longer wishing to be connected with the website wikipedia.org and deeming the censored encyclopedia to be unworthy of an Expansion Fleet article. On the other hand, we encourage everyone to help us bring a halt to the corruption of the Wikipedia Deletionist Admins who intend to delete any article that they personally never heard about (proves they didn't hear about much in the world). We discourage anyone to contribute any information, images or other things to the Wikipedia.org encyclopedia. Therefore, we ask everyone to sign our petition to bring this corruption to the attention of Wikipedia: [4] Thank you for your support!

SycthosTalk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. According to WP:CSD, if the author of the article requests deletion, the article is classified as a speedy delete. Also, according to the policy, "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." SycthosTalk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Vorak is not the sole author of the page and did not create it by mistake. Might be a hassle there. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Ruby 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Vorak and Aneirin are the authors of the page. Logically, they hold high positions in the management of Expansion Fleet. Vorak wishes to withdraw the article and the homepage of the website is blatantly unwilling to keep Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete if speedy is not possible. I understand what you mean. SycthosTalk 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-noteworthy. I would also lean towards Speedy delete per Sycthos. I understand Ruby's point but think we'll all fare better if this leave us quickly. Ifnord 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If you are worried about following process, it is in any case a valid speedy G4 (recreation of deleted material). Kusma (討論) 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - possibly G4 (recreation of delete materials). In addition, notability is not evidenced. No alexa rankings. Claim of google hits is not valid because it contains a lot of noise (ie: many web site contains the word "expansion fleet" without refering to the online forum/RPG in question. A notable online game should have more than 1136 registered members (which includes active and not-active/visit once members) - after all, Wikipedia:Notability (people) dictates that an author is notable only if circulation is > 5000 ... --Hurricane111 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The case for Delete is absolutely crystal clear, and any claims to the contrary are ludicrous. Ergo, allow me to quote a little Mikado: "Behold the Lord High Executioner". The consensus is clear, the protocol is adamant. There can be no exceptions. --Agamemnon2 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agamemnon2, please can we keep this as a purely business transaction and avoid treating it like a blowout in the Superbowl? Ruby 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete still asserts no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. --W.marsh 01:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Vorak is the only owner of the site I think. So him saying for it to be deleted probally means it should be deleted. He said he withdrew any allowing of Expansion to be on this place. Realizing that at the time probally would save picking it with the rules to take it off, that its no longer wanted to be on this place.


keep 67.68.222.46 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete TestPilot 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"'Keep"' This is a General use online encyclopedia, this is true, so are you going to try and delete everything from it that hasn`t been widely heard of? This article, simply by being here and through this discussion is, albeit slowly, giving the site exposure to outsiders. So all of those who are in favor of deletion and give this link to thier friends are doing nothing but promoting the site, the oppinion of the poster notwithstanding, they are still viewing the link and taking in the name, there is no reason to delete the site. Perhaps rather than simply try to abolish it you should look at it and then form an oppinion.71.97.190.106 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How can we accept an excyclopedia article about something which has changed several times just today? Ruby 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment For those who are members of "Expansion Fleet"/owners of the site, please do not take the "Articles for deletion" personally. The votes here do not reflect whether we believe the site/article is inferior or not-worthy, we are merely pointing out that the article does not meet Wikipedia's agreed-upon guidelines (WP:WEB). If you do not agree with this guideline, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites). If the community has consensus on changing the notability criteria, then how editors votes in articles for deletion will reflect that. --Hurricane111 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

keepwhy should this be deleted its a cool fourm nthing wrong with it, If it's deleted thats a hate crime!66.58.187.131 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is why you shouldn't follow instructions from the Expansion Fleet site. Everybody there is unaware of the Wikipedia WP:VAIN procedures. If they hate Wikipedia, so be it. They are the "haters" for attacking Wikipedia. We are merely following Wikipedia's policies. Think about it this way. If we had an article for every forum, regardless of size, the expenses to run this site will shoot upwards. Therefore, it is not a hate crime. This policy may be changed if you are willing to donate mass amounts to Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We'll call it the Expansion Fleet Expansion. Ruby 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just not notable enough. - Hayter 11:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and because almost every Keep vote has been a meatpuppet. - Cuivienen 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as CSD:G4 repost. Stifle 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Stifle, plus it seems we are not worthy to carry the article anyway. Let's not disappoint them. (Their website makes Konqueror very unhappy as well, crashes without warning) Grandwazir 01:47, 23 January 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Expansion_Fleet_%282nd_nomination%29_3111.html"