Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • COMMENT: BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Neocapitalist 00:20, 26 August 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)
  • Alexa rank is currently: 271,789. - Mgm|(talk) 08:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Also, discount votes based on non-existant Wiki policy. --Vagodin 03:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Pro-Keeping Arguments

Put arguments for keeping the website's page here. This section is not the place to contest those arguments; do that below in the designated section. Neocapitalist 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (Added source and details for some of the arguements presented here, as well as cleaned up a few sentances. --Mukashi 08:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC))

The forums attached to the website have the 20th highest post per member ratio of any board on the internet (Source: http://www.big-boards.com), and are the 437th largest board of all forums on the internet. (Source: http://www.big-boards.com)

Stardestroyer.net is the definitive website and board for debating Star Trek Vs. Star Wars. (The website is 1st on all search listings for the topic on Google. The webmaster, Mike Wong, is referred to by name in official Star Wars publications.)

The forums have over 2000 active members.

There have already been 3 VFD in as many months, all defeated to this point.

This VFD, and the VFD before it, were started in bad faith by members banned from the Stardestroyer.net forums for various offenses.

Something worth noting. SD.net forums have 2,000 members. These are 2,000 active members. The admin of SD.net regularly deletes registered accounts that never post on the forums.

[edit] Pro-Deletion Arguments

Put arguments for deleting the website's page here. This section is not the place to contest those arguments; do that below in the designated section. Neocapitalist 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic.

This article is essentially an advertisement; all sections that are not lists or timelines are only one paragraph.

The subject matter does not seem to comport with deletion precedents policy regarding Internet notability ("Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable", hence there is a presumption of non-notability); see also the proposed WP:WEB.

Ranks 298,756th according to Alexa (cf. [[http://www.poopreport.com's 99,819th ranking). Tanizaki 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to acknowledge the site as an external link in the existing ST v. ST article. Tanizaki 14:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No argument for keeping has shown how the subject comports with deletion precedents policy regarding Internet notability. Tanizaki 01:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The site while it may be usefull for sci-fi facts is a brutal and violent atmosphere. The level violence is bad as it is but it increases 100x if you make a mistake and it makes R movies look suitable for children in terms of language and dialogue. Thats why it should be removed from Wikipedia, we don't need people seeing this and being hurt by it or younger people that live in a rough society as it is seeing this stuff. For future refrence I'll save this due to the fact people like to delete these commments. (Unknown Source)

Not a very good argument, "Unknown source". Excluding it for those reasons would be a POV violation. Besides, Wikipedia has a giant article on the word Fuck. --Vagodin 01:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Keeping Arguments Rebuttals

The fact that the article has been subject to past VfDs is not relevant. Furthermore, the circumstances of the individuals who initiate the VfD is not relevant; that is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Tanizaki 14:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Being the number one hit for a given Google search string does not, in itself, make a website notable. Scoop On Poop is the first Google hit for "poop", but I do not think it deserves an article because of this fact.

The allegation that SD.net is "the definitive website and board for debating Star Trek Vs. Star Wars" is unsubstantiated, and irrelevant. If such is true, it is appropriate as an external link in the existing ST v. ST article.

If having over 2000 members were sufficient reason for a web forum to have a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would become a web directory. Tanizaki

Posts per member ration does not tell us if a forum is notable. Tanizaki 18:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Deletion Arguments Rebuttals

It is more appropriate to acknowledge the site as an external link in the existing ST v. ST article. That is opinion not an argument. You would need to prove this. Elfwood 14:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ranks 298,756th according to Alexa (cf. [[http://www.poopreport.com's 99,819th ranking). Tanizaki 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Alyeska has rebutted this below, and above in the pro-keep arguments. Neocapitalist 20:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And just to make things perfectly clear, I'll bring up this important fact here, from Wikipedia's own policy regarding Alexa.
Also note that the Alexa rating includes significant bias, due to various factors. For example, the Alexa software is only available for Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer, and requires installation. So, for instance, a website exclusively devoted to an Apple Macintosh related topic might not have an Alexa ranking that accurately represents its true traffic activity. On the opposite extreme, some webmasters install the Alexa toolbar for the sole purpose of improving their own rankings, by visiting their own web site with it. The Alexa toolbar's user base is small enough, that one frequent visitor can have a noticeable effect on overall results.
Given that the people who visit this site tend to be tech savvy, and would actively delete or avoid Alexa for privacy concerns (eg. By using Firefox), the Alexa ranking can hardly be considered to be accurate. --Mukashi 07:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is common for any one who uses IE to be advised to use firefox by others on the site.

This is a quote from the site owner “So, while I know this is kind of redundant since so many people have said it for so many other reasons already, it's really best if you use a browser that is not IE.” Elfwood 10:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


A google search on the phrase "Star Trek versus Star Wars" returns SDN as the #1 result, beating Wikipedia's own article on the subject!!! Don't give me that "not notable" garbage. --Vagodin 03:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not anymore it doesn't. Google shows "Star Trek versus Star Wars" #1 result as the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, even "Star Trek vs. Star Wars" comes up with a different site. FCYTravis 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a blatant lie. Anyone can type "Star Trek versus Star Wars" into google and see that stardestroyer.net comes up #1. (Wikipedia is #6). Out of 709,000 pages I might add. --Vagodin 19:51, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
    Not that I particularly care about this thoroughly unimportant subject, but: hey, Vagodin, how about you check your facts before insulting people and calling them liars? Perhaps you need a small course in assuming good faith, as this screen capture (direct link here) might demonstrate: Image:St vs sw.jpg Nandesuka 21:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    So you thought nobody would notice if you stuck some quotes in there so that it would exactly match Wikipedia's article title. Nice. You almost fooled us. If you leave the quotes off then it doesn't matter whether Wars or Trek comes first, so it makes more sense to search without quotes. As for your comment that this is unimportant, I fail to understand what you mean. If you mean that google is not a good way to test for notability then I would have to disagree. It is far better than Alexa in this case. Alexa collects it's information from an IE toolbar. Since most people who visit SD.net are tech savvy, many of them use firefox or other browsers, so Alexa is clearly not a good choice. --Vagodin 01:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Vagodin, I was perfectly straightforward about what I was doing: I provided a screenshot of the entire search precisely so that everyone could see that when you search for what FCYTravis indicated he was searching for, you got results consistent with what he said. I wasn't trying to "fool" anybody. As for the rest of your ungracious response, I will suggest that this is the part of the conversation where you're supposed to say "FCYTravis, I apologize for calling your statements a 'blatant lie'. I was wrong." And next time, take a deep breath before you attribute malicious motives to other editors. Thanks in advance for being mature about this. Nandesuka 01:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying to fool anyone, however running a google search with quotes is clearly not the best choice. As Elfwood pointed out below, SD.net always puts starwars first. As for your "take a deep breath before you attribute malicious motives to other editors" comment, considering this VfD was started by Tanizaki for malicious reasons it's pretty hard not to jump to conclusions. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --Vagodin 02:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I can explain why that’s the case. Stardestroyer.net always puts starwars first. So adding the quotation marks stops any stardestroyer.net results from appearing. A much fairer way is with out the inverted commas. Since it allows and accounts for both ways of writing it. Elfwood 22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek versus Star Wars and Star Trek vs. Star Wars

No argument for keeping has shown how the subject comports with deletion precedents policy regarding Internet notability. The policy you linked too said they were generally not notable we have shown that to be no true. Elfwood 10:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

(Unknown Source)I just want to add it's funny everyone goes back and forth on what site comes up when you put in "Star Wars versus Star Trek" at Google. Well what happens if I went to Yahoo which I prefer? What if I typed "Star Wars vs Star Trek" or maybe "Star Trek vs. Star Wars". There are tons of possibilities and tons of places people will use to search for a site for those two things. Of course SD.net will say the one specific way shows there page as the first result where as the hater of SD.net will show another way which doesnt show the SD.net as the first result. This is a useless argument.

[edit] Further Rebuttals (this section should be small enough to not be subdivided.

If having over 2000 members were sufficient reason for a web forum to have a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would become a web directory.- It dose however show that the forum is big and there for notable. Though it may not show notability by its self it dose help show it. Elfwood 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Posts per member ration does not tell us if a forum is notable.- Having the 20th largest post per member ratio is defiantly notable and is something that making this website/forum stand out from the crowd. Elfwood 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Comments/Discussion/Argument/Mudslinging

Comment This VFD is a violation of VFD policy. The article has survived two previous VFD attempts (most recently it survived one just 22 days ago) and this is the third VFD attempt in as many months. This is such a clear and blatant violation of VFD policy its not even funny. Its nothing more then a smear campaign by those who dislike the site itself attempting to remove it from Wikipedia because all they want is an encyclopedia that containts content they approve of. Alyeska 00:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment A Google search of the phrase "Star Wars vs. Star Trek" returns, as the number 1 result, a page from stardestoyer.net. This should lay to rest concerns about this sites notability. --Vagodin 02:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Here we go again... Neocapitalist 02:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Why does Alyeska have such a hard-on for Wong? Wasn't it enough that Wong owned him in the "Wong Is Wrong" rebuttals? Ned

Comment Ooooh! Petty comments made without any appreciation for the facts! Actualy I don't much like Mike. His personality isn't that great and he thinks of himself as all high and mighty. But he has done some good work in the ST vs SW debates and is definately an expert on the Evolution vs Creationism debates. Anyway, real nice comment about my status, real brilliant. Alyeska 04:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment directed at Tanizaki Surviving two VFDs due to a majority vote in favor of keeping the page is definately a case of surviving the VFD and being worthy of being kept. You think the information is somewhat lacking, then help expand it. Deleting what you don't like is childish. Alyeska 04:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment directed at "No consensus" crowd I find such a statement absurd. Oh, gee, you mean having the majority vote favor keeping the article in two previous VFD attempts is irrelevent? It might have been titled no consensus, but the majority vote in the previous two VFDs (I can't bloody believe people think that trying another VFD so soon after the previous two is going to fair any better) favored keeping the article thus the article survived and the majority consensus was that the article be kept. Its called simple math and logic people. Try using it. Alyeska 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It may have survived the vote, but votes by new accounts made after the nomination of the article or those very new to wikipedia may be discounted which could've changed the number of votes considerably. -Mgm|(talk) 08:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
And yet those votes were not discounted. They were counted TWICE. Why should things be any different on a third vote just 3 weeks after the last vote was finished? Alyeska 08:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Color me surprised. Tanizaki got himself banned from SD.net for blatant trolling of the forums. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=73568Alyeska 04:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Comment directed at Karmafist Just FYI "adamantine" is an adjective indicating great or unbreakable strength "of adamantium" as "crystalline" imparts qualities of crystal on its subject. *the more you know* P.S. I'm not a sockpuppet! SpringheelJack

Actually, adamantine was the metal of the greek gods. It comes from adamant (as does adamantium). Believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't an advertising vehicle for lame geek forums, it's an encyclopedia. This makes it very easy to get your facts right. Proto t c 10:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've said it before, I'll say it again, the Spacebattles.com article doesn't get near this much attention, in spite of both articles being pretty much the same in content. And don't tell me that Spacebattles is any more deserving of its own article than Stardestroyer.net. And yet, the Spacebattles.com article has yet to come up for a VfD, while Stardestroyer.net has come up for its third in as many months. It makes me wonder at some of the motivations for bringing this article up for deletion.GMT 04:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment More false information being spread. SD.net has offical rules making sockpuppet accounts against the rules and only the admins have two accounts (one for admining, one for general purpose posting). Alyeska 04:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment I see that people can't be bothered to read up the facts and continue to make false accusations without basis of reality. Wub, if you and Ryan had bothered to read up on SD.net you would find sockpuppetry to be against the rules and it certainly is not occuring here. All I am seeing is slander by the part of people who only want Wikipedia to post what they like. An Encyclopedia is about knowledge, not selective entries. Three false accusations of sockpuppetry in a row. I smell something, and it stinks. This is blatant slander and outright lying by people too lazy to actualy back up their claims. Alyeska 08:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • There may or may not be sockpuppets voting here, but it's clear to see there are plenty of meatpuppets. the wub "?/!" 08:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment There are no sockpuppets in here. Each member can be accounted for at SD.net where sockpuppet accounts are a violation of board rules and a permanent bannable offense. A great many of the accused meatpuppets are infact members who have been here since before the VFD. Several of the accused meatpuppets (some of whom have yet to vote) have become contributing members of Wikipedia since the previous vote. And last of all, all votes were apparently counted in the previous two elections as the people in charge of keeping track of the VFD elected to allow them. All you are doing is attempting to slander the opposition in order to force your opinion on Wikipedia. Come up with a rational reason for wanting to remove this page and enforce this opinion on all similar pages. SD.net is no different from the likes of Something Awful and SB.com. Both of those have Wiki entries, and the SB.com entry has not once attracted a single VFD. The SD.net entry attracts VFDs almost entirely because of the forum owner and the way the forums are run. Wikipedia is designed as an open encyclopedia, not an exclussive one that only contains content that you approve of. The SD.net entry is notable because it is the first of the dedicated ST vs SW websites and has one of the larger internet forums as well as a notable entry on the Evolution vs Creationism debate. Last of all the SD.net entry is far from vanity considering the number of people who dislike SD.net who participate in the editing of the article. There is no rational reason to delete the entry and all that leaves is irrational dislike of the article on personal levels. Alyeska 09:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment The "keep" voters have the burden of establishing how SD.net comports with WP:WEB guidelines. Tanizaki

Comment to Elfwood Give me a break. How could you possibly have been confused regarding what SD.net is about? Tanizaki

CommentMaybe because the entire concept of what starwars v startrek is, is confusing useless you under stand what you are looking at. Elfwood 18:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment WP:WEB is a proposed guideline Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment What just happened to the main article? stardestroyer.net This VFD has not ended.Elfwood 18:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Elfwood How on Earth is the concept of "Star Wars v. Star Trek" confusing? Do you know what "versus" means? Tanizaki 18:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Ryan Norton Thank you for pointing out an obvious fact. Do you have alternate, non-post hoc guidelines to propose? Tanizaki 18:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Tanizaki You stumble on to this web site, having no knowledge of startrek v starwars and you would think. What is this? Why is any one discussing this? Even stardestroyer.net’s 5min section dose not explain what the hell is going on it just gives the info.

When I first found the web site (before I got in to the debate on startrek.com) I was confused. Elfwood 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Elfwood There is a movie called "Gamera vs. Guiron". Guess what it's about? Tanizaki 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


Comment to Tanizaki I could not tell. It could be a comparison of political systems (As in capitalism v communism), a televised debate (bush v Kerry), an attempt to show which was better, a fight between to real combatant, a fight between giant monsters a fight between anima characters. I have no idea. Elfwood 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Nandesuka Brilliant deduction there. Vote Garnering. Oh brilliant. We have a vested interest to keep the article and we have been trying to clean it up and improve it. If someone is needlessly and senslessly attempting to delete the article with no rational reason (and infact I see lies being spread by those who want to delete it, an extremely dishonest tactic) I will inform interested people of what is going on so that we may defend our work. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Alyeska 19:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with votegarnering. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with making sure that admins are aware that votes are being "garnered"; many admins have suffrage criteria to prevent ballot stuffing from unduly influencing a vote. This is because, as you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Kindest regards, --Nandesuka 21:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Everything in the article belongs on a page at SD.net called "About Me" or "Fun Facts about SD.net". Tanizaki 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Your dislike of the entry is noted, and irrelevent. ST vs SW has its own entry on Wikipedia. The two primary websites that its debated at and have the biggest history with ST vs SW are worth noting on Wikipedia. Furthermore, SD.net is more then just about ST vs SW. Once again I see no rational reason given for the deletion of the article, just peoples personal predjudice. And you definately rank high on that Tanizaki. Alyeska 20:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Alyeska, you have improperly shifted the burden of proof. It is not upon the "delete" crowd to provide reasons why the article should be deleted. The burden is upon the "keep" crowd to provide reasons why the article should exist. Things are not entitled to Wikipedia articles by default. Tanizaki 21:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Burden of proof fallacy. The article is here, it has expanded, it has adressed a great many previous concerns. You must justify a reason to delete it. The very nature of Wikipedia is inclussive, not exclussive. Furthermore, this is not your intent. You were banned from SD.net for the most blatant and obvious trolling. You nominated SD.net for VFD after having just joined Wikipedia. After nominating SD.net for VFD you edited the nomination to remove your name. You are trolling and fullfilling a vendetta against SD.net. Its that simple. Everything you have done is in bad faith. Alyeska 21:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment No, it's not the burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the party making the affirmative claim e.g. "SD.net is entitled to a Wikipedia article". Feel free to tell us what my trolling was. I also hasten to add that I joined Wikipedia on 7/20/05, more than a month before I nominated SD.net for VfD. I also point out that your appeal to "bad faith" is argumentum ad hominem. What's the big deal? Deleting this article will not make SD.net go away. Tanizaki 21:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment I just read through the entire Vote for delete guide and i could not find a single thing saying the defending party has to prove the article is fit for Wiki. And in traditional debates the one making a claim is responsible for backing said claim up.Elfwood 21:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment In traditional debate, the burden of proof lies with the side making the affirmative claim. Didn't your school have a debate team? See also http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html Tanizaki 21:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment I guess you missed a little fact. This VFD places the affirmative claim on the side of those wishing to delete the article. Think of it as a trial. Your the prosecution. Burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. Alyeska 21:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm a lawyer, so please don't tell me about burden of proof. And no, the affirmative claim by definition rests with the people claiming that the article deserves to stay. So, why does it deserve to stay? Tanizaki 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Show me in Wiki policy that the burden of proof lies on us. The fact that the article survived two previous VFDs just so happens to be a strong reason to keep the article. Furthermore, our arguments have already been given and the "counter" arguments ignore facts or use double standards. And don't try to hide from your trolling. This is clearly a personal vendetta by you. Furthermore you are attempting to get the Trek BBS page deleted using false pretense. And I just love the fact that you ignored the little part where I nailed you for creating the VFD and then trying to hide that fact. Alyeska 21:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Wiki policy cannot trump logic. Again, what was my trolling? And I just love the fact that you opened your mouth and Wong came in it. Tanizaki 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Tanizaki You are making the affirmative claim. The claim that it should be deleted. A VFD is exactly that a vote for deletion not a vote to stay. Elfwood 21:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment No, you are making the affirmative claim, Elfwood. Now, go have some haggis. Tanizaki 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

CommentOk let’s analyse you latest post. Evidence: none. Insults: plenty. Racists comments: plenty. Put up some evidence that a vote to get rid of something is not an affirmative position or go away.

Also I want an apology for your racist comment “Now, go have some haggis.” Which I find offence (being Scottish) because you think it is a valid debating retort. I will file a complete with an admin is you don’t apologise. Elfwood 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment So now you don't care about policy eh? You are very clearly trolling and you don't even understand the logic you are claiming. You started this VFD, you made the affirmative claim that the page deserves to be deleted, you must provide the evidence. BTW, nice VANDALISM Tanizaki. I point out that the "policy" people are citing is not actualy policy and not grounds for removal, and you attempt to discredit me by vandalizing my post. More proof that all your doing is trolling. Alyeska 22:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Your comment is not responsive. Tanizaki 22:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Actualy, no. My comments pointed out the error in your claims. You make personal claims of authority without backing them up. Your responses are irrelevent because you can't be bothered to support your claims. Alyeska 22:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Does it itch? Tanizaki 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Further proof that you have no desire to debate or discuss, only to troll. Alyeska 23:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Ok look at it this way. You say that i should not go down to the shops to bye for fruit. Who is making the affirmative position there? Its you. You need to give evidence why I should not go down to the shops. I don’t need to prove my decision is the correct one. It is the same thing with a VFD. Elfwood 22:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys are welcome to have whatever sort of conversation you want, I guess, but I don't think any of this is furthering the conversation. No one is keeping score, and the one who makes the most cutting remark doesn't "win." If you're all just interested in slinging threats and insults at each other, perhaps you could find a more appropriate place, such as perhaps some internet forum board, or your user talk pages, to do it. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to get back to building an encyclopedia. Regards, --Nandesuka 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for Nandesuka. Jeers for those gunning for an article for the 437th ranked SW/ST forum on the internet. Tanizaki 23:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

More lies from Tanizaki. SD.net is ranked 437 on the list of the largest forums (not just ST vs SW, SomethingAwful is also in there and definately isn't a ST vs SW forum) on the internet just by total posts. SD.net is in the top .1% for internet forums. SD.net is in the top-20 when it comes to post counts to member ratio. Something else I would like to point out. I have spotted ten delete votes citing non-existant wiki policy as their reason for wanting the article deleted. Alyeska 23:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have created two sections above for voters to read before actually voting. Both camps, make your cases. Discuss those cases down here. I'm sick of changing claims and fucked-up arguments; let's get this discussion organized. Neocapitalist 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, SD.net is not just a web board. It has a massive website to go with it. According to alexa.com the board only accounts for 15% of the site's traffic. --Vagodin 03:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It still has a long way to go before it can catch up with http://www.poopreport.com [Poop Report/SD.net challenge]Tanizaki 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As was previously mentioned, SD.net is one of the most active forums on the internet given that it is in the top-20 for member to post ratios. That is not something to laugh at. Alyeska 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved here

Comment I see such a blatant double standard on the part of some people here. They are so intent on removing this page they are willing to do anything. Every single instance of someones edit history being nitpicked is someone who voted to keep the article. Radiant, Ryan, Nandesuka, Wub, why aren't you ruthlessly tearing through the delete supporters? And why do I see so many people voting delete under IDENTICAL grounds which are not Wiki policy? You have actively slandered and attacked Keep supporters as well as accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppeting. I see identical behiavor on your parts. Don't try and play the high road card. You've been slinging mud the whole time, often times without thought or concern and outright slandering people whole. I've directed my comments at peoples arguments and reasoning. I've been using logic. Your doing nothing more then slinging mud. And you think your best qualified to determine what Wikipedia should have. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, not an exclussive club for articles only you people personaly approve of. Alyeska 08:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Since Wikipedia is "open", get ready for the article about my Uncle Phil. He's a Shriner, can make great bacon burger dogs, and has a definitive collection of Green Lantern comic books.
Comment If you did create an article about your Uncle Phil we would have to show that your Uncle Phil is not special in any non-family way. If his bacon burgers had won awards, his green lantern collation was in the top 20 in the world, if he was the world best expert on some thing or notable in some other way he would deserver a page but not other wise. Elfwood 11:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please note that "no personal attacks" is more than just a good idea, it is official Wikipedia policy. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly haven't been anything other than courteous to you. To describe my activities (opposing the inclusion of your non-notable forum, and annotating the votes of some voters who have not contributed many articles to Wikipedia) as "slinging mud", or "slander" belies a lack of perspective, and seems like a personal attack. Therefore, I ask that you moderate your language. One technique I like to use when I'm upset is to write my comments or message, and then before hitting "save", I go to the bathroom or take a brief walk to calm down. Perhaps you could try this technique. As to the vote itself, believe it or not, Wikipedia editors can think that including your favorite forum in the encyclopedia is a bad idea and and still be acting in good faith. It is entirely appropriate for editors to vigorously debate and argue about the merits of an article, and to examine the bona-fides of other voters; if you find voters who are voting "delete" who have only 5 or 20 edits, I encourage you to annotate their votes accordingly. I'm sure the admin who closes the vote will appreciate it. This will be my last reply to you on this issue, because Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I find the whole forum-like tone of this talk page distateful. I respectfully suggest to you — as I tried to, obliquely, earlier — that you have already convinced everyone you are going to convince with your arguments, and that perhaps you (and User:Tanizaki, who has been equally belligerent) should step aside quietly and let the community finish coming to consensus without further shouting. Regards, --Nandesuka 11:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Touché, Nandesuka. No more comments from me. I'll let my pro-deletion arguments above speak for themselves.Tanizaki 13:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Since Ryan isn't bothering with the Discussion page, this definately goes out here. Who the hell do you think you are Ryan? Its obvious what your doing here. You are doing everything in your power to discredit those voting to keep the page. You happily toss out labels of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry but you can't get around the fact that your selectively attacking only those who disagree with you and quietly ignoring everyone who agrees with you. Your doing nothing more the mudslinging attempting to smear the keep voters just to get what you want. Alyeska 04:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Greetings Aleyska :) and well, I'm not ignoring anyone - none of the delete votes that arn't labeled have under 20 edits (my stipulation for obvious meatpuppets, but I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out edit counts - feel free to point out mine). Also, I did leave a comment a while ago on the discussion page (sort of in favor of keeping actually) and do occasionally follow it Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

    • How do we get an admin to close this VFD out. As you say it shouldn't exist.Gateman1997 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is the first time i have ever seen sock puppets too delete an article
    • 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 I'm not sure that we should be promoting Alexa given that it's a piece of spyware. Nor should we be basing any kind of decision on poll results obtained from a sample population that includes mostly those who are too clueless to protect their privacy.

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) 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)

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)

  • Comment - I have no clue what's going on. The page is redirecting to itself and has apparently been deleted. Optichan 19:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like someone blanked it then created a redirect circle.Gateman1997 19:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments go here. Seriously.

  • Comment This article seems to fall outside of "articles that contain nothing but a description of the site and that seem unlikely candidates for expansion may be deleted for lack of useful content" context, however, at present it also does not fall into the "Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years" category either, would some enegetic wikipedian/'sock' go find something along those lines, bearing in mind that "National or international media attention means editorial content produced by a national or international news content provider, with particular weight given to off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters". Personally I have no problem with this article and can easily see that it's VfD history, revert wars and comments on its talk pages have fueled hostility that would have been better channelled in making it a better article, but has been prevented by this hostility. Alf 12:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment See the article's discussion page for my idea on expanding it. This article clearly has room to be expanded and should not be deleted.
    • If people coastally putting up VFD was a reason to delete any page could be deleted by a single user putting up VFD after VFD. Multiple VFD is not a reason to delete. Elfwood 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Not anymore -- these have inspired me to rejoin the Wikipedia community.  :) Neocapitalist 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 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
    • What is this Alexa rank everyone keeps throwing out? I've never even heard of Alexa. It can't be that notable itself.Gateman1997 17:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

  • Gateman -> please read Alexa.
  • SpringheelJack -> Please see your talk page.
  • Neocapitalist -> nobody claims that WP:WEB is policy. People cite WP:WEB as an indication why this website is not notable.
Ignoring other indicators of notability. Neocapitalist 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Elfwood -> multiple VFD is also not a reason not to delete, especially if the previous bunch were sock-stricken.

[edit] again from the main page

  • Comment Again, the site is not just a discussion forum. It is a massive website that also happens to have a forum. According to Alexa, the forum only accounts for 15% of the site's traffic, but you knew that already because you read the discussion page before voting. What? You didn't? That's what I thought.
  • And I should note that voting to "protect" is not going to make any difference. Protection isn't the issue here, nor is it decided here, nor is it generally appropriate. Radiant_>|< 09:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enough with the Secrets

I want to know the vote counts. Reading the votes as left in the vote section this page should have survived. I want to know every vote counted and every vote left uncounted. I want to know who. Those people who had votes discounted deserve a chance to defend themselves. What I see here is nothing more then a bad faith VFD run by people who want Wikipedia only to have what they approve of. They wan an exclussive rather then inclussive encyclopedia. I see countless invalid and outright lies given for delete votes. And I am dead certain that the delete voters were guilty of everything they accused the keep voters of.

Give us the information or I will declare this VFD invalid because I see more keep votes then delete votes and nothing given else wise by the admin. Alyeska 05:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I counted 27 delete votes, 17 keep votes. I discarded all users with fewer than 50 edits, and a couple users with more than 50 edits if all their edits were to the disputed page or related VFDs. Note that I discarded the nominator's Delete vote as well as one other Delete vote. FCYTravis 05:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • From a more general perspective, note that this result is almost directly related to Alyeska's ill-advised attempt to garner meatpuppet votes on the forum in question. There are a great many Wikipedians who deeply resent attempts by obviously interested parties to manipulate Wikipedia's processes, and meatpuppeting VfD votes is a perfect example. I might not have even given the VfD a second glance except that I saw a bajillion meatpuppets. I use the RickK Rule for meatpuppets - the more of them who show up, the less likely an article is to be worthy of inclusion. If an article needs a bunch of ballots stuffed to survive a VfD, then it probably shouldn't survive it. Alyeska, next time you want an article to be kept, make a rational and logical argument for it instead of blatantly going to drum up meatpuppet Keep votes that are just going to be discarded. FCYTravis 06:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For those of us at SD.net, this was an item of interest and we were discussing it. I was not calling for people to vote. That they came and voted was their own choice. Some even choose to do stupid things such as vandalizing others user pages. Though I find it interesting that you didn't count the VFD starters vote because of his actions. Why even allow the VFD when his intentions where clear? He had no intention of doing Wikipedia right and his VFD nomination was under false grounds and intent to conduct a vendetta against SD.net. That all three of the VFDs were started by people banned from SD.net is telling. Many of them dislike the nature of SD.net and the ban polls, yet those are almost identical to VFDs here on Wikipedia. They are using the very thing they detest to try and hurt what they don't like. Alyeska 07:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the charge that Alyeska was "garnering" votes. The thread on SD.net's forum was simply a discussion of what was going on here (and what would you expect?). Although I couldn't prove it, I believe that delete votes were being garnered. All three VfD's against SD.net were started by former (and banned) members of SD.net with a grudge. --Vagodin 06:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt the delete votes were being garnered. Radiant! nixie the wub me etc. are all VfD fanatics voting on a lot of issues and many other casual high-post-count/admin people will vote on issues that are close and contentious like this one. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who has never given the least bit of thought to whether the Enterprise could take on a Death Star, my vote was most assuredly not "garnered." I could care less about forum politics. What I do care about is upholding the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    You'll notice that I never said that there were no legit delete votes. It's just very suspicious that the deletes won by such a margin after surviving a VfD earlier this month. What changed? --Vagodin 07:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Your concerned about the integrity of Wiki. You call allowing a mob to be formed for the purpose of burning (deleting) articles they don't like on false and questionable grounds to be something to be proud of? You just enforced mob mentality. Get enough people who dislike something and it gets deleted, without regard for the article itself. Alyeska 07:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The page did not "survive" the earlier VfD. It was simply closed as no consensus by an admin who did not apparently want to deal with sorting out the morass of sock/meatpuppet votes. A VfD that is not closed as keep has no bar to renomination - it neither "survived" nor "died." I further note that I discarded the nominator's delete vote. FCYTravis 07:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    The VFD was started by someone with a vendetta. Why should the VFD have even occured in the first place? If his vote wasn't counted, then the person nominating effectively never voted and therefor never nominated the article for VFD in the first place. Alyeska 07:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    That is incorrect. From WP:VFD: "Anyone can make a nomination, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users." The only rule is to determine whether a nomination is in good faith or not. If you would like to present a case that the nomination was not in good faith, you may do so at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. FCYTravis 08:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't take a simple look at the facts and decide that yourself? The VFD was started by someone who was banned from SD.net. He was banned via a ban poll. This is almost identical to VFDs. He then uses the VFD to try and remove the SD.net article from Wikipedia and just so happens to try and hide his tracks in the process by altering the name of the VFD starter and then attempted to vote a second time. If thats not a bad faith VFD, I don't know what is. Taik was conducting a vendetta against SD.net pure and simple. Alyeska 08:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't really care what happened on another forum. That's irrelevant to Wikipedia. Whether it was some sort of vendetta, I don't know or, honestly, care. Like I said, forum politics bore me. The nomination was not made in violation of WP:POINT or as a vandalous act. The nominator's motives in nominating are not relevant. What matters is whether the article features an encyclopedic subject. In my opinion (and in the opinion of many other Wikipedians), it didn't. The fact that meatpuppets then appeared pretty well sealed the deal. FCYTravis 08:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how the nominator's motives in nominating are not relevant when it's those motives which clearly establish the fact that the nomination was made in bad faith, and thus the nomination should be made invalid. Wikipedia isn't isolated from the net. In cases like this, where an event (a banning) on an outside site has sparked off an event here, the events of those outsides sites do matter. I can understand not wanting to get involved with forum politics, I'm sure the politics of Wikipedia are crazy enough as they are, but quite honestly, unless you make at least some vague attempt to understand the situation rather than dismissing it out of hand as "not relevant", then I'd have to say you're not exactly qualified to judge if the VfD was valid or not.
For that matter, I'd have to say the same thing for a number of the delete votes, who voted more in protest to the meatpuppeting rather than to having actual reasons to delete the article, that could be justified with actual WP policy rather than vague guideline. --Mukashi 13:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
People with fewer then 50 edits didn't get their votes counted. Yet the VFD creator created the VFD when he was well under 50 edits, and the VFD stands. Interesting. Alyeska 15:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy allows any user to start a Vote for Deletion. Wikipedia policy also allows the admin who closes a VfD to discount votes made by users who may have voted in bad faith. From WP:DGFA: "For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." "Votes for Deletion" is not a strict vote, but instead an attempt to determine consensus among the Wikipedia community. People who are not part of the Wikipedia community are not entitled to manipulate the process by stuffing the ballot box. Wikipedia is not a democracy. FCYTravis 15:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not a bureaucracy. A vote by someone with few contributions but who supports his arguments well should be worth more than the vote from an established member who uses fallacious reasoning. That's just common sense. --Vagodin 01:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well duh. Anonymous users, too-new users, meatpuppets and sockpuppets cannot vote, but they can nominate. You don't have to vote on anything to nominate it. In fact people regularly abstain when nominating anything. Radiant_>|< 15:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Any particular reason you registed on SD.net if your so disineterested in forum politics?Alyeska 08:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My plan was to explain on the relevant thread exactly why Wikipedians felt so strongly about deletion. Now that you've engaged in conversation here, I don't think it's really necessary. FCYTravis 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The interested parties are likely still observing this thread. Alyeska 09:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
As for anyone's suggestion that I'm someone's sockpuppet, well, sockpuppets don't post easily verifiable photos on their user page :o) FCYTravis 09:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppets tend not to have admin powers either. Alyeska 09:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Precedent for adminisitrative ruling in cases of no consensus. Admin decides to rule "keep(no consensus) since there wasnt a two thirds majority for deletion" If 17 keep and 27 delete votes were counted, the delete votes fall short of a two thirds majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy Wikipedia Deletion Policy "In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion The deletion guide also states "What is important is not your name, but whether your nomination is in good faith" Which it clearly was not.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet "However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia." If they want to discount 23 of the keep votes, then surely they must firmly establish that they are sockpuppet accounts, and should be tagged as sockpuppet accounts.

Also, could the continual attempts to discredit the arguments of supporters by analysing their contribution history be considered elitism? If so, that may be in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers .

It's not "elitism" - it's ignoring what amounts to vote fraud by bringing in new users whose sole intent is to vote keep on an article they are personally interested in. This is called "meatpuppetry" and is commonly dismissed in closing votes, as it violates the intent of Wikipedia's processes. If you wish to claim that the VfD was invalid, I invite you to begin a discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion or beginning a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. FCYTravis 06:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You adressed only one (though not really) of his points while outright ignoring the other two. What about the issue of 2/3s majority? What about the issue of the VFD nomination being in good faith? Alyeska 06:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll take a stab then. First of all, I don't think many people here was voting in bad faith (maybe the nominator but that's a different story), although it might have gone better if anyone under 100 edits just didn't vote. As I stated before, if the admin is suspicious there might be meatpuppets (as in this case due to it being on a forum and whatnot), then the admin will typically throw out any vote with less than 100 votes (this admin only threw out ones with less than 50), and in many cases the Admin will throw away votes under 100 edits anyway. Typically an article gets deleted if there are 60% in favor of deleting when all is said and done. However, as wikipedia is not a democracy these are only really hypothetical rules, as technically VfD is only to provide comments on what action the admin should eventually take in order to represent the consensus of wikipedians - so the admin could delete an article with 30% delete votes if he/she finds a really valid reason and deems it so (I've only seen it once around here).
And I also pointed out the difference between sockpuppets and meatpuppets on VfD page, but for clarity "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)." sockpuppets are when one user creates multiple accounts, whereas meatpuppets are just users with low edit counts voting to prove a point or for one particular cause (which most wikipedians don't like because they haven't contributed anything, generally). For a humerous example of sockpuppetry see [1].
Also, normally VfDing again is discouraged - however, on some articles like this one the VfD will get messed up and will Admin will note that it needs to be retried more carefully (as happened last VfD for this and one or more of the GNAA VfDs).
Finally, in answer to the question about the nominator nominating in bad faith... well, that's a tougher one. As stated previously becuase of the last VfD it sort of cancelled out much of the bad faith from the nominator (if there was any) as many people who voted last time wanted to voice their opinion again.
Finally, I should note that many people believe that if a website really is notable it shouldn't need people notified by the website itself to come vote in support of it (not me personally though, but that seems to be the consensus here). Also, maybe you can ask an admin for the previous version of this page and continue it in your user space (User:Alyeska/SN.NET etc.).

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean something like this? User:Alyeska/Stardestroyer.net. Already taken care of. And Taikani is already showing up in the discussion section and insulting me yet further and mocking me over the whole incident. Too him this was a competition to get retribution over his being banned from SD.net and now he is gloating over the deletion of the article. Alyeska 09:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How did I gloat, insult, or mock you? Please provide quotes. TIA! Tanizaki 16:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, I'm pretty sure 3RR doesn't apply to your user pages so you can revert him as much as you want. In addition if it becomes a problem admins have to the power (I believe) to protect your user pages from just that particular user... so I wouldn't worry about it too much :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

-(Mark666 once again not logging in) I got a comment about the site but first one for Alyeska. First I see you think Mike is High and Mighty too. This is a point many people that don’t like the site try to get across. This is my general comment, he’s like that Maddox guy that the young people like. Heck, most of the people are like that on the site and those people are all part of the same click that if you don't have the same general opinion you will get torn apart and you must beg for forgiveness or get banned.

Time and time again I watch here as people from the site say "We allow equal opinions". Yet the most common thing I see is religion bashing, some really horrid subjects often, battles that are childishly handled by the "Click"(edit:Try "clique". It's hard to be pretentious if you can't spell.) and one sided and always ended with a childish manner like a Ban or a childish Title added to someone’s name. I could go on and on. It's like a school ground play yard with a bunch of bullies and yes men and new people that are beating toys. There’s really no order. You think the board is popular but it isn't or else you'd have allot more members.

Now of course the response to this comment will be many things. Like I don’t know what I'm talking about or maybe I am a really pissed off banned member or some other insult or some other cleverly worded way of snaking around the issue. Personally I think the first deletion here was done by members at your site because to many people were speaking out against it and since you got caught editing to much stuff and you were told to stop you had people vote to delete it so all the comments would be removed then acted like "Banned members did it!". Yes I'm sure they all somehow got a hold of each other through magical means and voted for the deletion.

Anyhow, I'll end for now with this. One day hopefully things on here will get taken care of and you won’t be screwing around thinking you own this website adding pages everywhere. Then eventually maybe SD.NET will be fixed up because of its vulgar and horrid content. It does have good Information on more then just Star Wars, to bad it’s covered in filth. Once again ill be copying this incase anyone tries to delete or edit it.

  • If we take a quick look at the TrekBBS wikipage, we'll see that a webpage that is no more notable, but far less controversial, somehow managed to avoid gathering delete votes like a rotting corpse gathers flies.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticles_for_deletion_Stardestroyer.net2_39eb.html"