Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There were three users, all of whom voted keep, that have only edited this AfD; another that edited this AfD and the article itself, who also voted keep; and a fifth user (Cptjeff)who edited this AfD and an unrelated article, who also voted keep. Only the latter was included in the tally, and marginally at that. Note that I didn't discount the comments these users made, but they weren't sufficient to sway the result. Mindmatrix 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section 47

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The article was created by a member of the site, not the site owner. Also, currently parts of the text are copied from the site, but that is because it needs something to begin with whilst it is expanded. I personally was looking at expanding on what a Somma class is and I know others are looking at putting up things relevant to the site but which are not on the site. Part of the trouble is that the site has been running long enough that it has become encyclopaedic of itself, however that cannot be considered here because this is a seperate central encyclopaedia, not an individual site. I would expect the article to be given the decency of opportunity to be finished before being nominated for deletion. After all, it would be in the spirit of freedom of speech, and as we all know, the desire for freedom resides in every human heart.

user:Sir Brutus

  • Exactly. It outlines storys in the Star Trek world, albeit non offical ones. I belive that if Bravo Fleet, which has had their article up for quite some time, is allowed, then Section 47 should be permitted as well. Precident has been established that this is permitted. Let it stay. Cptjeff 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not really a fan website, it is a sim. There is a wikipedia entry for Bravo Fleet which is a sim site similar to Section 47. If Bravo Fleet is to be allowed a Wikipedia page, then I believe that Section 47 should be allowed one too. Part of the article is copied from the site, however it is relevant and as this article is a work in progress, I don't believe that this will remain true for the whole article. Hero1701 00:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Please put your comments below the nomination to keep things clear. As nominator I of course vote to delete as per nomination below.--Kalsermar 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Bravo Fleet is written as an encyclopedia article should be, and establishes notability for having thousands of players. This one is written as if it were real and gives no indication that it's notable in any way. DreamGuy 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominated. Madman 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Radiant_>|< 15:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete page as currently stands as copyvio to remove the violating text from history, especially since this is a nonnotable roleplaying game collaborative fiction thing per Wikipedia is not a place to store your fantasy life entertainment needs (what, that's not a real page? well, you know it's a real rule even if the page isn't named that). After it's gone, if the Section 47 is the name of the Starfleet Black Ops group on the Deep Space 9 TV show, then it might deserve a real article or a redirect to a mention. Not sure if that was the right number though. But as copyvio this has to go. DreamGuy 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have blanked the existing page and replaced it with a copyvio notice. Above and beyond that, this site just isn't notable. Nandesuka 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a sim, as Bravo Fleet is, not a fan site. This is not Section 31. As for it note being a notable site, how do you define notable? This site is one of the most noted Star Trek RPGs on the Internet, outranking even Bravo Fleet on some award sites. If this page must be deleted, why is Bravo Fleet allowed to stay? Hero1701 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Both the site founder and current owner have been alerted to the accusation of copyright infringement so they can verify that this is not copyright infringement. If and when they deny the accusations, the delete votes based on copyright violation will not be valid. As for being a sim, then it is a notable simulation in being one of the few trivia sims around and with a concise history and current structure. People looking up Simming Organization probably want to see what sorts of site are around and how they are run. Section 47 already appears there alongside Bravo Fleet and so is just as valid for inclusion within Wikipedia and arguably more so because of the unique nature of promotion within the sim based on trivia.user:Sir Brutus
  • Keep Abstain I agree that the article needs to be rewritten, but it should not be deleted. Section 47 is a notable Star Trek sim site, even if it doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria. It was the second site to combine trivia and simming in one, and with the first site to do that having closed down some time ago, it is now the longest running site with this concept. Many sites have been created since featuring the same concept. (So maybe Section 47 does meet the WP:WEB criteria after all.) Furthermore, Section 47 is not just a website, it is an organization, with an extended management system. I think there are many articles on Wikipedia about much smaller and less organized organizations. Finally, as the original creator (founder) of Section 47, I have no problem with parts of the text from the Section 47 website being used on Wikipedia. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How is it notable? Cite any claim to notability with references please.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we have different ideas of what 'notable' constitutes in this case. I cannot cite any references to claim Section 47 meets the WP:WEB criteria, because it probably doesn't meet them. However, I believe Section 47 is a notable organization within the Star Trek RPG community, for reasons mentioned in my original "Keep" post. I also believe that's sufficient to warrant a (properly written) Wikipedia article; to me, the WP:WEB criteria are too strict. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. Why would there be no place for organizations like Section 47? ··· rWd · Talk ··· 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure that sites of this type should be here at all -- maybe Bravo Fleet should be deleted as well.--SarekOfVulcan 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sarek, could you tell us why you don't think sites/organizations like Section 47 and Bravo Fleet should be listed on Wikipedia? I respect your opinion... just curious what it is based on! Thanks. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • In this case, instinct. I didn't have time to do proper research on WP policies on this sort of site. However, if all that can be said at this point is material that's already been listed on the original site, it's not encyclopedic. I'll be watching this debate, and I may clarify my position one way or another, with cites, when I have more time.--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We have the approval of material use by the site's founder, so there is no copyright issue. Also, in a court system Precedent is given priority. As the Bravo Fleet Site Exists and has existed without complaints, it stands to reason that a similar site should be allowed to be listed. --Cptjeff 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Bear in mind that relying too heavily on this argument might get you both deleted. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes the original poster would do well to remember that for many residents of Wikipedia's AfD, "winning" debates by any means necessary is more important than keeping decent enough content in the encyclopedia :(. Pcb21 Pete 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with WarekofVulcan that perhaps both should be deleted but this one is up for debate right now and no-one has given any proof of notability. Apart from that, all sites of this nature are themselves violating Paramount's Star Trek Copyright. This site does not meet WP:WEB criteria and is not listed on Alexia as far as I could tell at all. Heavy commenting by the site's members make it seem like Vanity, advertising or both to me.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. No claims of notibilty. Does not meet WP:WEB in any way. Does not come close. Wikipedia is not a listing of star trek fansites role-playing groups. (Isn't there a star trek wiki?) Agnte 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Simming Organization <--Someone felt we were notable enough for inclusion there. Also, S47 is based on a Paramount game, it wasn't just made up out of nothing. Heavy commenting is because we feel that it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. What else are we meant to do? Let anyone who wants bandy their opinions around without us defending our own? Only we have something to lose here. If the article remains then Wikipedia will not have lost anything. Drizzt Do'Urden is hardly a notable literary character outside the D&D Forgotten Realms community and by your definition violates the copyright of both Wizards of the Coast and Salvatore. Yet because it is present on an information sharing site and not being used for profit then copyright is technically kept. The writer of that article, like the writers of the Star Trek ones, are merely relaying information, not trying to market an idea. Thoosa is a non-notable character from Greek mythology, but nonetheless she has an article, albeit a stub, about her. Would you say the stories made up thousands of years ago are more relevant today than those made up today?user:Sir Brutus
  • Comment Most of the people opposed to this article, cite the fact that the Section 47 website doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria as an important reason. However, Section 47 is not primarily a Star Trek-related website (and certainly not a fansite, Agnte), it is an international organization that brings people together to share their love for writing fiction in the Star Trek universe. Yes, it does use a website to reach that goal, but the website is only a means, not the goal itself. If Section 47 conducted all its business without a website, would the article be allowed? I think that's the question that should be answered. Don't judge Section 47 against the WP:WEB criteria, because they don't apply. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, well I would say as a star trek role playing group it isnt notable either. Theres nothing in the article that claims notibilty. Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Agnte's statement of lack of notability, there's only 280+ odd members but loking through the site less than half of them active, maybe a few dozen regular people active at most. To rWd, No, it wouldn't just like I don't think any other likewise group is notable enough. There's hundreds of such sites, do we include them all? What about bookclubs and such?--Kalsermar 19:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there are quite a few book clubs listed on wikipedia. several hundred. perhaps you should delete all of those as well? I don't think so. as for the notability criteria, well, those don't mention simming organizations. At all. message boards, yes. Fan fic? no. In fact, there are quite a few fan fic pages... take a look at all of the links from this page... Fan Fiction are you going to get rid of all of them? If efverything had to follow those guidlines, there would be nothing left. on the main page, I see articles displayed that I wouldn't classify as notable. who needs to know what the world record is for balancing cups on ones head? or when they did it?
  • There is something known as being reasonable. the only critera right now is wether or not it's notable. Well, It is for the people that read the article, isn't that what counts? Notable is entirely subjective.--Cptjeff 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course notability is very subjective. However, I agree with Kalsermar and Agnte that Section 47 probably isn't notable enough by any criteria used on Wikipedia. Just have a look at the pages in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. We may not all agree with those criteria, but many Wikipedians do, so it's a bit unfair to suggest Kalsermar and Agnte are being unreasonable. Does that mean the Section 47 article should be deleted? No, I still don't think so. Wikipedia:Notability contains arguments for and against deleting non-notable articles. I think the arguments against are more important. Unfortunately for us, it looks like most Wikipedia admins think the arguments for are. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel sad about this because I always used to think of Wikipedia as a place to put information. I didn't realise the arguments for removing information were regarded by the admin as being stronger than those for keeping it. Maybe if the admin had a love for Star Trek then we would be kept along with all the book clubs which were probably checked by admins who have a love of reading. As it is, we appear to be less notable than entirely fictional obscure literary characters simply because we're not in paperback. user:Sir Brutus
    • I must say I am deeply troubled by the tone and demeanor of some of the people from the site in question and their dismissives and defiance against this legitimate procedure by the WP community.--Kalsermar 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sir Brutus, note my username, and note that I voted against keeping this. Love of Star Trek has nothing to do with it.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To Kalsermar: we do not feel this page should have beennominated for deletion. Defending that veiw is part of the process. the tone is confidence as we belive in what we're talking about. it is not defiance nor is it contempt. We are simply aruguing our point of veiw: that as wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of unlimited knowlege, then we should be able to add some knowlege, hoever small, to the mix. --Cptjeff 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The thing is, the majority of the Wikipedia community does not believe Wikipedia is an unlimited repository, and there are some good arguments for that view. The nomination for deletion was perfectly acceptable by almost any Wikipedia policy, if not all. Some have said the people in favour of deletion don't know Section 47 well enough to make a good judgment. In turn, I think most people in favour of keeping don't know Wikipedia well enough to make judgment, and that probably includes myself. I've only been active here for a few weeks, and I'm still learning the rules. I've changed my vote above to abstain; 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. By the way, Kalsermar was right about some comments being dismissive and defiant, and I'm sorry to see that coming from the community that I set up. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • To Kalsermar: I'd like to just point out that your member count is inaccurate. The ranks list does not display all members since the site opened in the year 2000. Only recent trivia only members are kept on the inactive ranks page. {Section 47 Member}
  • KEEP

As a member of the site, I don't believe that it is a fansite, but more of an ongoing story. We don't just talk about how much we love the show, we create NON-CANNON stories, and missions, that are enjoyable to read, and enjoyable to participate in. We are one of the largest sites of this form of Star Trek Sim, so that I think that having give or take 200 members is fairly significant. I am not under the impression that it is in any way a copyright violation, but I am not a lawyer. Keep this article. BlAsTeR89 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Rye

  • Keep

I agree with the commenter above "BlAsTeR89" The member count is inaccurate. There are actually 167 active members, so more then a few dozen, in actuality. (Research done by looking through Section 47 proboards. Linkszwo 5:08, 25 December 2005

  • Delete per nom TheRingess 02:45, 26 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.