Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo Fleet (second nomination)

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 delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo Fleet (second nomination)

(See also first AFD)

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Hayter's comments on the first AFD BigDT 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Minor Editing can be article in this encyclopedia with some minor changes OTAKU 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that a keep? - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gaming clans are routinely speedily deleted. I don't see how this is any different. Erik the Rude 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Such gaming clans are speedy deleted based on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Specifically, standard A7 says that speedy deletion is permissible for "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This article asserts its importance based on it being (1) long-running and (2) having 1500 members. I would suggest reading the first AFD as there are plenty of comments in there about this organization's notability. BigDT 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete It may be old and well-populated, but it's still not nootable. GassyGuy 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. References are all to their own website, with one to a web forum post that appears broken. Not notable and Wikipedia is not a fan listing. - Motor (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too crufty and NN Ydam 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Motor and as recreation of previously deleted stuff. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable. --Mhking 12:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clans are not suitible material for Wikipedia articles.--Isotope23 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment An article for what appears to be a splinter from this group, Obsidian Fleet, is also in Wikipedia. If Bravo Fleet is deleted, I imagine Obsidian may need to go in its footsteps. I will leave it to somebody else to judge, though. GassyGuy 15:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB and, per Isotope23, WP:NOT for gaming clans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments in the first afd. Why has it been renominated now? Isn't there a rule about providing reason with nominations? Even if not, in response to Angus McLellan it doesn't fail WP:WEB. That page says a site is notable if it meets any of the mentioned criteria. BF has been the subject of discussion in at least one printed non-fiction book, and its creator has been interviewed on Internet radio alongside one of the Enterprise actors. BF claims to have been awarded 115 website awards. And then there's the subsidiary groups, websites and forums. Individually, they're not worthy of note but coupled together (as they are) under one banner they are. Perhaps the article needs rewording to reflect this, but that's not grounds for deletion. - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't checked the old nomination, my original comments run thus: 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) - Hayter 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP per my reasons in the first AFD (which I've included here). Also, this is being proposed by a pseudo-deletionist without a real reason why it should be deleted, without citing any valid Wikipedia Policy. I'm sorry, but show me where "fancruft" is a valid policy. I'll admit to being a senior member of BF, but I have also been a Wikipedian for over a year and a half now. BF has been around for about 9 years now, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using WP:NOT, We're (wikipedia) 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 (the information in the article) 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 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Responsive points:

• When Azathar links to "pseudodeletionist," he links to the category of "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist." I have no idea if the actions of this association's users don't actually correspond to the midpoint philosophy suggested by its name — but that's of no matter, as I have done nothing with them. I merely chose to associate my account with their category because they seemed to be a useful midpoint between inclusionism and deletionism, with a title expressed in a humorous way.
• Regarding my use of the term "fancruft":
  • The WP:CRUFT essay — not policy, but a peer-reviewed essay — states, "[Individuals who dislike the term "fancruft"] might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is nevertheless in common use there."
  • Said essay also states that fancruft is commonly used as a shortcut in AfD to reference the "indiscriminate collection of information" clause: "Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating 'indiscriminate collections of information.'" That would be what I originally meant.
  • It is questionable whether using the term "fancruft" is a proper reason for a deletion nomination, but if it is, this shortcut has been committed on a massive scale in AfD for God knows how long.
  • That having been said, I've realized after my June 6 nominations that using the term "fancruft" seems to generate unnecessary offense. One might posit that these individuals are going to get offended anyway, but I've started using the direct policy cite.
• The policy language under "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" does not support inclusionism. But I'm not about to start debating with Azathar the merits and faults of inclusionism. It's a battle that's raged on Wikipedia long before I got here, and it's not been resolved. I doubt Azathar and I could come to an agreement.
• I'll let others respond to Azathar's questions about WP:WEB and WP:VAIN. I did not cite either in my nomination. In fact, I don't see anyone the WP:VAIN clause in this AfD, but perhaps Azathar couldn't be bothered to tailor his response to respond to the actual claims.
• Azathar has got his vote, and if this goes against him, he's got WP:DRV. But Wikipedia isn't his web host, and that means his article isn't a God-given right and is thus subject to community consensus. — Mike •  20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the response. This isn't my article, in that I didn't write it, but I do have a vested interest in it. And you are correct regarding the inclusionist argument, we probably couldn't come to an agreement. I know you didn't cite WP:VAIN or WP:WEB, I included them because I mentioned them in the first AfD, and I did say that I voted Keep based on those same reasons. You are right that I don't have a "God-given" right to have my article up on wikipedia, but you don't need to be rude and say "God-given" right either. Remember Wikipedia:Civility. Lastly, "fancruft" is just an essay, not policy, and as such, it shouldn't be used as a reason for an AfD, though you are also correct that is has been before. Perhaps though you should be an example for other editors and correctly state your reasons why you think this article should be deleted. Your "corrected" reason is a much better one to use then "fancruft". No, I'm not offended that you used the term, but instead am annoyed that you are using an essay (though peer-reviewed) that is NOT policy to justify an AfD. Just because every one else does it does not mean its the correct way to do it. And yes, I do have WP:DRV, thanks for the reminder.--Azathar 00:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to qualify + no reason given for deletion. --JJay 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Was kept after the first try at deleting this article, no reason given this time for deletion. --Saberwolfe 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What I get from this article is the history of a fan club. The article fails to credibly assert why a non-member might care about what's going on in Bravo Fleet. We should keep all the fan film articles nominated recently because those films by their nature reach beyond the circle of friends that produce them; this group should keep its own records on its own website. Kudos to whomever is so into archiving the activities of Bravo Fleet that they chronicled the saga of people stealing images off the fleet's web pages[1]; I honestly think such minutia should be recorded and archived for the ages ... just not here. Vadder 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete utterly non-notable beyond a small circle. Completely unencyclopedic. Deleuze 14:02, 14 June 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.