Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacebattles.com

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 was Delete. Not only there's a clear majority for deletion, as the arguments for keeping were hardly any relevant to the policies presented for deletion, namely WP:WEB and WP:V, which the article clearly fails. Sockpuppets and the Pokémon test did not help.--Húsönd 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you care to provide any solid proof for sockpuppets or are we meant to just believe you off hand. If you have evidence of sockpuppets please post it, otherwise it's a dubious move. Douglasnicol 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spacebattles.com

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Spacebattles.com (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD with "fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable forum/website, nothing is referenced, no chance of anything being referenced", however it was contested. I wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning. I don't see any reliable independent third party sources, nor do I think there will be any. My googling has not found any as of yet. Fails the Alexa test (~190K), if that happens to be your thing. Doesn't rank highly on Big-Boards either. Delete as failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just what would qualify as a reference? It is possible for facts to exist without having an outside website to reference them. And SB.com is linked to other websites. The Alexa rating itself isn't Wiki policy and shouldn't be grounds for deletion. And SB.com does rank well on Big Boards when you check things other then the first stats. And it just so happens that SB.com is owned and run by Kier, one of the primary developers of the VB Bulliten Board software. It should be noted that things far less notable have their own pages. Such as individual pages for minor characters in rarely watched TV shows. Alyeska 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Our Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy excludes facts that exist without any outside source. And "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The infamous Argumentum ad Pokémon has long since been refuted, as shown below. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pokemon Rule, i.e. there is an article for every Pokemon in existence. Also, SB is central to the Star Trek versus Star Wars community. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • When you can cite the same range of in-depth sources about this web site that are cited at Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references, you can validly employ that argument. Of course, you will have at the same time cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied, which is the argument that you should be making here (but are not). Until you cite such sources, that argument will not hold water. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• If you check Big Boards again, you will notice SB.com ranks 307 on the post to members ratio. For its size SB.com is incredibly active. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Being the 307th forum in activity is not a good thing. I would normally use such a statistic to argue for deletion. --- RockMFR 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Just to make sure my opinion is in the open. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gotta catch em all, Pokemon!--Kross^Talk 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• None of the editors wanting this article kept have presented any valid arguments for doing so. Your weapons are sources, sources, sources, people. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments such as the above, you won't make a case for keeping this article. This is not a vote. Arguments based firmly upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are what count. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website; Wikipedia is not a web directory for advertising fan sites. Supposed Pokemon "rule" is fallacious. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground.Bwithh 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Bwithh. This is simple advertising for a non notable website, which has nothing special associated with it. The pokemon argument is fallacious. The simple fact that some event, and some bit of information has been created or occured, doesn't automatically qualify it for Wikipedia. The event, whatever it is, must have some recognisable intrinisic value. This article doesn't. scope_creep 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the one who prodded it- I stand by my previous statements. --- RockMFR 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources, so fails WP:WEB. A web site's existence and use by a community does not mean it gets a WP article. The website must be notable to someone outside of it's user base. WP is not a replacement for Googling the best place to post about your "thing" --Steve 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a lack of reliable sources to verify anything. No indication of meeting WP:WEB. --Wafulz 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - All Google hits for Spacebattles.com hit WP/Mirrors/their site/random forums. NN fails WP:WEB Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone citing the current rules, care to explain something to me? Stolen Sidekick met your requirements and it got deleted. So apparently your little requirements are a farce. Might as well be truthful here and admit that you would vote deletion regardless because you simply don't want the page. Alyeska 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Uncle G has already covered "If article X then article Y" above. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A lack of verification from reliable sources and no assertion of notability during the article's 15 month lifespan point straight to WP:AUTO/WP:COI, original research and a failure to understand what wikipedia is not. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, WP:WEB. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is a well known website in the scifi 3D modelling community, and is very popular with even non-modellers who just want to download good looking space movies. Honestly it is a well known and significant site. However having just visited there again (not been there in a while) I didn't realise how unupdated it is these days. Ben W Bell talk 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. To Ben W Bell, the original Spacebattles.com website hasn't been updated for a while, but if you google it, you will find that Spacebattles forums are third in the listing. There are many obscure items that are kept in Wikipedia. Douglasnicol 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is "well known and significant" as you state, then it should be easy for you to cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. They are your only arguments. Not citing sources isn't going to make a good argument for keeping the article. Neither are bare personal testimonials prefixed with "Honestly". We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. Uncle G 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. Google "spacebattles.com", there are 31,900 hits, and the vast majority are from sites other than spacebattles.com. It's referenced from many places on the net, that's a sign of popularity. Ben W Bell talk 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You haven't cited a single source there. You've counted Google hits. Counting Google hits is not research, nor is it a reliable metric of popularity (which isn't the metric for articles on web sites in any event). Once again: Please cite sources. If the subject is "well known and significant" as you state, then this should be easy for you to do. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Nope, can't find anything. Guess it does fail then. Ben W Bell talk 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An active forum with over two million posts is quite notable. -Toptomcat 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Big Boards it's currently ranked 383 in the world based on the boards, with almost 3 million posts and over 9,000 members. That seems relatively notable. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Our criteria are WP:WEB, which (quite rightly) make no mention of counting posts. Please cite sources, as has been asked several times already, if you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article fails to cite to verifiable independent sources that confirm the importance of this site, as required by our criteria, and previoulsy correctly noted by Uncle G.-- danntm ^T _C 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated previously. CraigMonroe 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gaming Websites usually have articles as ads. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Had you actually bothered to read the website in question you would realize that it is not a gaming website. That you wrote it off by calling it a gaming website shows you voted against it without any attempt to see the truth of the matter. As it stands, I keep hearing people talk about how UncleG got it right. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the Sidekick article which met all the stated requirements got deleted. And knowing that the Sidekick article was deleted regardless of the requirements, why should I even bother with your rules knowing full well that its going to be ignored just like it has in the past? You've killed any respect I once had for Wikipedia policies now that I see how they are being applied in a cherry picking standard where people just remove pages they don't like. Encyclopedia's are supposed to be repositories of knowledge. Not elitist publications that say "No, your not good enough for the people to learn about". Alyeska 04:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why are you bringing up another article's supposed improper deletion? That happened almost half a year ago and is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. If you can present sources for the article, go ahead. --Wafulz 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am bringing up that article because it demonstrates my complete lack of faith in this current process. Even if the requirements are met, I doubt its going to do any good since it didn't save other articles. Alyeska 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I can certainly guarantee that bringing up no sources will ensure deletion. Anyway, random AfDs are not the right place to bring up concerns about process. You'd have better luck here. --Wafulz 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment And just how long do the editors of the article have to rectify the situation? You very well know that providing said sources can be difficult and time consuming even with a favorable set of circumstances. Alyeska 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article can always be restored if material is discovered at some point, but its not like this article was just created. Its been sourceless and a violation of WP:V for 1.5 years. Wickethewok 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And its not like anyone was told of this violation and didn't see a need to rectify a problem that was unknown. And do note, it is easier to do then it is to undo. Trying to prevent the article from being deleted appears to be rather difficult. Getting the article restored after its already been deleted is going to be worse. So rather then give the article a chance, its condemned and then deleted making it effectively impossible for the article to even attempt to be fixed because its now in a situation where no editors can do anything to it. Alyeska 07:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• If its deleted, you can always get a personal copy of it to work on in your user space until its up to WP specs. Think of it like your car getting inspected: if it fails inspection, your car isn't confiscated, its just not allowed to be on the road until it passes inspection. Wickethewok 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Uncle G. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain -- no matter what opinions are aired, it is clear that the Cabal have made their minds up: discussion is therefore pointless. Alyeska, you will just have to accept that this (space)battle is lost. -- Simon Cursitor 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Oh, yes, blame the Cabal. Look, it does not meet the requirements we have for an article listing, at WP:WEB. IF you want to save the article, then list -- PRECISELY -- what sources you can add (independant sites, news stories, references from other notable sites) in the article to make it fufill WP:WEB and the deletes will turn to keeps. As it stands, it has no SOURCES. Wikipedia is not a listing of web forums or websites, however much that upsets you, and blaming a non-existant cabal is just .... silly. Furthermore, a lot of your interactions with various users and admins suggests that you seem rarely assume good faith. It's definately bad when you basically say that if we don't agree with what you want, then we're evil. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, you even have to admit that the AFD came about rather suddenly, there was no notice put up about verifying sources or anything beforehand. Some sort of warning would have been nice, and at least courteous. Instead, the AFD comes up and that gives practically no time to counter it. Douglasnicol 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And therefore, that cheapens the AfD process and calls into suspicion the motives of the individual who opened this can of worms in the first place. However, he is a bit of a newbie and therefore I will assume good faith.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You may, but it seems some people just want to delete it out of hand. I'll repeat a 'warning' template giving people time to get the relevant info would be a basic courtesy, instead of just jumping in for a VfD. It shows very poor form if that happens, there should be a template warning of the lack of relevant material and then give it so long to redress that. A sudden VfD is not right. Douglasnicol 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article contains information that is well presented and informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• I really don't understand why this needs to be deleted. How is it hurting anyone?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidefever (talk • contribs)
  • I don't understand either. It appears to me to be a newbie attempting to curry favor by enforcing rules when it suits him.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please remain civil, don't make personal attacks, and remember to always assume good faith.--Wafulz 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say it should stay if you aren't planning to go through and evenly apply the rules to the other sites in the category that fail to put up reliable third party references. --MarineTanker

• This is not a valid reason to keep an article. --- RockMFR 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, than someone should get cracking on getting all the other unverified pages deleted. Guess I'll have to start the ball rolling. MarineTanker 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, let me help too. Then I'll just get RockMFR to singlehandedly deal with the giant mess which will doubtless result!!  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's legitimate, go ahead. However, try to remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, you should note RockMFR is in no way at all obligated to take any part at all in the deletion discussions that you seem adament on creating. --Wafulz 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep is stumbled upon this site, because i read a reference to "i read this on spacebattles" on another forum. I then looked it up on Wikipedia and found an informative article that told me all I wanted to know about "Spacebattles". This is what Wikipedia is all about and is in no way self promotion! So Keep!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.227.240 (talk • contribs)
  • That is not at all what Wikipedia is all about- Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. --Wafulz 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually all it says about being a primary source is Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a primary source for news reports. No harm in Wikipedia being a primary source for other items. Ben W Bell talk 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep So what you're saying is that we should not look to Wikipedia for information? Because that was what he said he was doing, and you just stated that that was the wrong way to utilize this page. Also, nobody has yet said that providing sources will prevent deletion. Thus it seems rather fucking pointless to the people who made this site. Italic textAnd it's not even self promotion.Italic text So there's no reason to delete it neither, save for the does not cite it's sources thing, which should be warned of first, which it wasn't neither, and isn't even a guarantee because now, it suddenly isn't influential enough. Unlike the aforementioned Bulbasaur article. To put it this way, the ones who argue for deletion cite a flaw, and then nominates for deletion. Then they inform the writers that providing sources won't save it because it isn't noticeable enough. Then the writers are informed that articles of less note, that should also be deleted won't be, because, well.. Because. And nominating those articles for deletion because they violate the same rules that are almost being followed, are Italic textdisrupting wikipedia. And any complaints about this are completely irrelevant for some reason. Which is for some reason not intellectual dishonesty? So remember people if your article is deleted, don't list other articles up for deletion for the very same reason, especially if they qualify for deletion... Anyway, what you guys who want to delete are saying is that it's getting deleted because it isn't verified, right? And that if we add sources that verifies things, it won't help anyway and it is not worthy enough and it's self advertising and so on. Then someone comes in and argues your point, and points out unfair treatment, and thus get's slapped with a giant fish slapping dance version of "that's not relevant to the debate"... HaakonKL 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs cleanup, but doesn't really violate any Wikipedia policies. --JaceCady 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  Uhh, it violates many policies... --- RockMFR 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It should be noted at this point that WP:WEB is just a set of guidelines that have been drafted by users, it's not a policy. Policy and guideline on Wikipedia are extremely different things. Ben W Bell talk 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Enumerate them all, please.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Guidelines are extentions of policies, in order help judge whether an artilce meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR a little more quickly. Regardless, no such evidence related to these policies has been presented. --Wafulz 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - No evidence is presented in the article to establish the notability of this forum. It even states that more than 70% of the forum's posts have been created by a small amount of people. The Alexa rank is also quite weak. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WillyWonty 22:53, 13 November 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.