Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super smash stadium
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, after discounting new accounts used only for working on this article or voting on this AFD. —Cleared as filed. 05:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Super smash stadium
Fails to pass web notability test: fan fiction site stored in a relatively non-notable host (Alexa rank: 144,750, 366 Google hits, 12 Google hits for its previous name). The Superpowers subsection can be considered vanity. ReyBrujo 20:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 |
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}} |
- Comment I would like to point out, that the web notability rules state that a website can be proven notable if it mantains an Alexa rating of at least 10,000. You yourself stated that SSS's Alexa rating is 144,750. That's well above the minimum requirement of 10,000. Even if you try to dodge the issue by considering SSS a webcomic it even beats the webcomics' minimum requirement of 100,000. Not only that, but SSS is also an established website (seven years old, with a fan base of hundreds) that has set a trend (inspired dozens of other SSB fanfictions and spinoffs). Not only does SSS pass the web notability rules, it passes them with flying colors.
The only real thing that should be discussed here, I think, is wether the Superpowers section is vanity. (I don't believe it is, but even if it was that would only be reason to edit it out, NOT to delete the entire page.) Believe me when I say I do understand why it may appear as vanity, since it is a section written about the writers themselves. But what you need to realize is that the Superpowers ARE SSS. I don't even mean just the notable Superpowers who did really big things, like Lemmy Koopa. All of the Superpowers are an extremely important part of the SSS storyline. SSS is a website that is defined not only by what the staff members add but by who the staff members are and how they interact with each other. Trying to say we can't talk about the Superpowers in an article about SSS would be like trying to tell a history book writer that they can't talk about the Presidents in their discussion of the history of the United States. Sure, we could do it but it would result in an incomplete article that doesn't tell even half of the story. Knight9910 5:14, 26 December 2005
-
- Comment Actually, Alexa rank is backwards. That is, for a site to be notable, its Alexa rank, according to Wikipedia, should go from 1 to 10,000, and in case of a web comic, from 1 to 100,000. An Alexa rank of 144,750 fails to both goal. As for the fan base, notability requests a forum with at least 5,000 members. Remember that AfD is just a test to see if the community believes the page is notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. If it fails now, nothing prevents it to come back in a year to see if, by then, it becomes notable enough. -- ReyBrujo 11:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Even so, this article deserves to be here. First, I double-checked Alexa. That 144,750 is for SMBHQ, not SSS. SMBHQ is SSS's parent site. It is not SSS. Second, the web notability rules state that a website can be listed on wikipedia if it is an established site that has set a trend. (Actually, someone took that out, but it should be there for obvious reasons. And no, not just because I want it there.) SSS is an established website. It has been on the internet for seven years, having gone through three seasons and acquired a fanbase of hundreds, if not thousands, although admittedly most of said fans do not post on the message board. It has also set a trend, having been the first massive SSB fanfiction, and having single-handedly spawned hundreds more.
What I am saying to you is that Alexa ratings and forum members aren't an accurate gauge of a website's notability. For example, Neglected Mario Characters is also a child site of SMBHQ, meaning it has the same Alexa rating as SSS. NC also has only a meager forum population of a couple hundred at best. If ratings and forum members are the only things that matter then NC's wikipedia entry should be deleted as well. You know, nevermind the fact that NC was THE FIRST SPRITE COMIC EVER and was the very beginning of that trend, having inspired almost as many sprite comics as Bob and George. Well, guess what. SSS was ALSO the first of its kind and single-handedly inspired HUNDREDS of other websites. SSS is a great site that has had a HUGE impact on internet culture. If that's not "notable" then frankly I don't know what is. Knight9910 15:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment In regards to the assertion that the SSS Superpowers section of the entry could be considered Vanity, having read the guidelines on what wikipedia considers "Vanity", I would like to point out that the SSS Superpowers section does not refer to the personal lives or activities of the people referred to in it, but rather, refers to their impact on the site as a whole, as well as referring to the place in the fiction of the site of a character based on them. This does not meet the guidelines of vanity, in the context of the website the entry refers to, any more than the page on George Washington is vanity in the context of the United States history. Pdusen 24:09, 28 December 2005 (EST)
- Comment on the Superpowers section. If anything, it portrays me in a negative light. (Yes, I wrote it too.) I'm not quite so sure on the other entries, but my short and not-so-productive reign resulted in negative vanity. At least the entry on me isn't vanity. However, like the other articles I have seen in my short time here, it seems clear that you have to have a certain amount of popularity to be here. My comment is thusly filed for reference. --Metal Man88 05:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I would vote to keep this because it's obviously more than advertising or vanity. The website guidelins were obviously just made to discourage those from happening, and this is not fitting within those problem areas, so I would say keep this article. 11:51 31 December 2005 (UTC) - User:VanillaX
- Keep One of the major arguments in favor of the deletion of this article is the claim that SSS lacks notoriety, as well as its parent site, SMBHQ, which features a link to SSS on the front page and has since its creation 7 years ago. However, SMBHQ has clearly established itself within the popular world as a well-known resource. Proof of this can be found at this page, which contains a scanned section of Nintendo Power, a national gaming news outlet, clearly mentioning SMBHQ. And because SMBHQ has garnered national attention, it is not obscure, and neither are any of its subsections, especially one that has been clearly linked to on the main page for seven years. Pdusen 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Hey, I didn't realize SMBHQ was in NP! Awesome! - Knight9910 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails to meet WP:WEB's notability standards. --Stormie 12:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It's clear that you did not read what I posted immediately before your message, Mr. Stormie. For that I forgive you. Pdusen 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The only argument that at first seemed to hold water was the notoriety. It is hard to prove that you caused spinoffs even if it is obvious you did. However with the addition of the Nintendo Power article I can see no reason to delete this article especially with the testimony by Metal Man88 that shows there is no vanity.--Nodal 20:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This fanfiction just seems too esoteric regardless of any Alexa figures. It looks to be more at home in a History section of the Super Smash Stadium homepage. - Liontamer 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While the website is based on a certain group of games, there is plenty of information provided on the website (as well as, eventually, in the Wiki article) regarding the characters and the stages for any outside observer who has never heard of Super Smash Brothers to fully understand what is going on. Therefore, the fanfiction is not esoteric. Pdusen 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable fan fiction. I would like to point out that Knight9910, Pdusen, Metal Man88, and Nodal have all registered in or after December, with all edits pertaining to this article and related matters. In fact, Nodal's only edit is the vote on this page. --Pagrashtak 10:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Which proves what? Many of us came for the original purpose of maintaining this article, and others came to dispute this outrageous claim of non-notability. This in no way makes our comments any less valid. Pdusen 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't prove anything, and I never said that your comments or any one else's comments are not valid. I am merely stating this because it is something that is typically taken into consideration when determining the outcome of an AFD. I've added a template above that should help explain. --Pagrashtak 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you. I would just like to point out that thus far I have given Verifiable Evidence as per the template you posted: The grounds on which this discussion began, the claim that SSS lacks notoriety and the claim that the Superpowers section could be considered vanity, have both been essentially proven incorrect by me, as can be seen above. It would take quite a stretch of the imagination to claim that national media attention does not prove notoriety.Pdusen 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. Nintendo Power just barely mentioned SMBHQ and said nothing about the Super Smash Stadium portion in particular. That's not enough for me. I don't think it's that much of a stretch of the imagination at all. As for vanity, I consider this a secondary issue to notability in this case, but I'll say this: For me personally, I feel that anytime anyone writes about himself, he is treading on thin ice as far as vanity is concerned, regardless of how notable he is. I'm sure many others will disagree with me on this and that's fine, but that's my personal Wikipedia style -- I err on the side of caution with vanity. --Pagrashtak 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For a magazine to be able to publish such a reference, particularly in the case of Nintendo Power, they must recieve submissions regarding such links on the internet by, not only one reader, but enough to garner notice by their letter filters. Nintendo Power has quite enough articles to try and squeeze into one issue every month, without giving a full-page free advertisement to a website that sends them little in the way of profit incentive. So why mention the site at all if not for demand? As for the lack of mention of the SSS itself, because they were doubtlessly strapped for space as I previously suggested, it makes no sense to link to a specific subsection of a website when the entire site is equally relevant (as well as having a shorter URL.) As well, Super Smash Stadium is a main section of SMBHQ: It has a link on the main page that every visitor goes to and has had that same link for eight years. I agree that one must be cautious in the case of vanity. However, I think only mentioning what about onesself is essential information in regards to a topic (For example: I built that stabel) does not qualify for vanity.Pdusen 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Now you're making false claims. That is not a "full-page" advertisement by a long shot. The entire text of that page that relates to SMBHQ is this: "If it's news about Mario that you crave, you can log on to smbhq.com, where information and opinions about our favorite video game plumber flow freely." And don't claim that NP was strapped for space - the top third of the page is a graphic of Mario at a computer. The editors would have had ample room to mention SSS if they really wanted to. The rest of the page is taken up with graphics, several other fan sites, and one third of the page is devoted to marioparty.com. Does one sentence about a web site whose Alexa ranking is not enough for per se notability really entitle a subsection of that site to an article? --Pagrashtak 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually one sentence is a big deal when SMBHQ has not even given any money for advertising. I happen to subscribe to Nintendo Power and there are almost no fan websites ever mentioned. I remember being surprised at the time that they had this. For Nintendo Power to personally recommend a website shows a lot of trust on their part that everything on the site is important enough for them to state the website. If there was information on there that was not important people might blame Nintendo Power. With this amount of trust if they could have they probably would have loved to write a long article based on the website. However then their advertisement purchasers would have felt that this devalued their own article because why should they pay money when this website is getting it for free?--Nodal 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't say that it was a full-page article. You misunderstood. What I said was that Nintendo Power wouldn't GIVE a full-page article to a website that does not ask them or pay them to. Pdusen 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Now you're making false claims. That is not a "full-page" advertisement by a long shot. The entire text of that page that relates to SMBHQ is this: "If it's news about Mario that you crave, you can log on to smbhq.com, where information and opinions about our favorite video game plumber flow freely." And don't claim that NP was strapped for space - the top third of the page is a graphic of Mario at a computer. The editors would have had ample room to mention SSS if they really wanted to. The rest of the page is taken up with graphics, several other fan sites, and one third of the page is devoted to marioparty.com. Does one sentence about a web site whose Alexa ranking is not enough for per se notability really entitle a subsection of that site to an article? --Pagrashtak 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For a magazine to be able to publish such a reference, particularly in the case of Nintendo Power, they must recieve submissions regarding such links on the internet by, not only one reader, but enough to garner notice by their letter filters. Nintendo Power has quite enough articles to try and squeeze into one issue every month, without giving a full-page free advertisement to a website that sends them little in the way of profit incentive. So why mention the site at all if not for demand? As for the lack of mention of the SSS itself, because they were doubtlessly strapped for space as I previously suggested, it makes no sense to link to a specific subsection of a website when the entire site is equally relevant (as well as having a shorter URL.) As well, Super Smash Stadium is a main section of SMBHQ: It has a link on the main page that every visitor goes to and has had that same link for eight years. I agree that one must be cautious in the case of vanity. However, I think only mentioning what about onesself is essential information in regards to a topic (For example: I built that stabel) does not qualify for vanity.Pdusen 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. Nintendo Power just barely mentioned SMBHQ and said nothing about the Super Smash Stadium portion in particular. That's not enough for me. I don't think it's that much of a stretch of the imagination at all. As for vanity, I consider this a secondary issue to notability in this case, but I'll say this: For me personally, I feel that anytime anyone writes about himself, he is treading on thin ice as far as vanity is concerned, regardless of how notable he is. I'm sure many others will disagree with me on this and that's fine, but that's my personal Wikipedia style -- I err on the side of caution with vanity. --Pagrashtak 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you. I would just like to point out that thus far I have given Verifiable Evidence as per the template you posted: The grounds on which this discussion began, the claim that SSS lacks notoriety and the claim that the Superpowers section could be considered vanity, have both been essentially proven incorrect by me, as can be seen above. It would take quite a stretch of the imagination to claim that national media attention does not prove notoriety.Pdusen 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't prove anything, and I never said that your comments or any one else's comments are not valid. I am merely stating this because it is something that is typically taken into consideration when determining the outcome of an AFD. I've added a template above that should help explain. --Pagrashtak 01:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Which proves what? Many of us came for the original purpose of maintaining this article, and others came to dispute this outrageous claim of non-notability. This in no way makes our comments any less valid. Pdusen 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I should say that SSS is second only to NC in popularity at SMBhq. Not sure if it needs a wiki page though. - SPKx 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
