Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrekBBS (second nomination)

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 was No consensus to delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:12Z

Postscript: I recommend merging to Trekdom#Trekdom & the Internet. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 23:22Z

[edit] TrekBBS

TrekBBS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

First AfD No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Major message board affiliated with a major, non-trivial website (UGO). Frequented by many notable writers (take a look at the contributors to the Trek Literature board`-- one of them is the main editor for Pocket Books. Also affiliated with a major Trek-related`news website, Trek Today. It is discriminatory to exclude a major site simply because it has not won an award or doubles as a magazine. 23skidoo 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment When the World of Warcraft english forums with +2 MILLION registered users didn't pass afd (and you have to have a active WoW account to be a registered user), I hardly think that you could argue this site merits a keep based on users. I don't understand how someone can can call this bbs a 'major site' when it just barly has 10,000 users and, yes, we can exclude this 'minor' site simply because it does not pass WP:WEB--Brian (How am I doing?) 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Well, I wasn't involved in the AFD debate for the website you mentioned. I would have voted to keep. Please PM me if there happens to be an appeal. Just as I will support any appeal involving the deletion of this article. It totally meets WP:WEB in my opinion. 23skidoo 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - Seems non-notable, but really isn't too bad. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк|соήтяївѕ) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, I don't think it matters how special a BBS is thought to be by it's users or if some of it's members are notable. The website in and of itself is not notable and thus fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons brought up by RWR8189. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't he arguing for a deletion? There's nothing in that nom that would indicate the article passes WP:WEB. MER-C 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - alexa = 104,945 [1]. MER-C 04:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:WEB criteria, per 23skidoo. Alexa ranking is not everything after all. Terence Ong 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Which part of WP:WEB does it meet? JChap2007 18:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the fandom part of WP:WEB. I did not see that anything in the article or in 23skidoo's comment clearly established more than coming near the edge of WP:WEB guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is necessary discrimination by notability, not unfair discrimination against your favorite hobby thingie. I don't know if any message board, let alone any SF-fandom one, meets WP's general notability standards enough for a standalone article. Barno 06:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Completely notable Star Trek-related website. -- Freemarket 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Agree with above. TrekBBS is a well-known Star Trek message board. -- Voldemort 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Articles on forums are almost never verifiable; no one has shown this one is any different. None of the other arguments matter if it doesn't pass WP:V. Recury 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although I believe the history section is accurate, lacking citations it is unverified. Although Marco P. and other writers post, that in and of itself doesn't make the site WP:N to the broader community. --EEMeltonIV 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline impossible to verify, and none of the arguments for notability are sufficiently strong. Brendan Moody 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Are you suggesting this article is a hoax????? 23skidoo 14:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Of course not. I'm a member of the BBS myself. I'm suggesting (per Recury) that there aren't likely to be verifiable sources for most of the article content, not that that content isn't true. Brendan Moody 15:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE I love these AFD's simply because they are easy to defend. First, the World Of Warcraft game has over 7.5 million users world wide. The World of Warcraft english forums have over 2 million registered users. Eve:Online has a userbase of just under a million gamers, while the Eve:online Forums have just over 190,000 registered users. Just because these forums are part of a notable game, it doesn't make them in-and-of themselves notable. The Sci-Fi.com offical forums are often visited and posted on by people such as Ronald Moore (the creator of sci-fi's battlestar galactica) some of the BSG cast and the many writers of the Stargate series. As of today they have 60,162 registered users. They don't pass WP:WEB -Brian (How am I doing?) 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability outside the fandom. Tevildo 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep TrekBBS was mentioned in newspaper articles nationwide pertaining to the Save Enterprise Campaign. The Administrator, T'Bonz (Bonnie Malmat) was directly interviewed for said articles.ElHoserGrande 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Was it the subject of these articles, and could you provide a cite? JChap2007 19:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly! A mention in a newspaper article is not a valid source. The articles must be in/of/and about nothing else other than the TrekBBS. That is wikipeida policy. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ok, lets break down WP:WEB and this article...
Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • Not that I can find. It has been mentioned in passing my newspaper articles, but a couple sentances or a mention of the BBS in an article talking about saving the "Enterprise" tv show does not qualify as a valid source.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
a) Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
b) Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
  • A mention in passing is exactly what the article on the "save enterprise campaign" was, hence...trivial. I was mentioned (actually quoted) in a newspaper article about a local 300 person LAN party. Does that mean I mean WP:BIO and deserve a wikipedia article of my own?
2) The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization.
  • No, it has not. Examples of such awards: Eisner Awards, Bloggies or Webby Awards. See Category:Awards for more. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability. This site has not won any.
3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
  • Again, No it is not.
The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

Well it doesn't provide such proof and as far as I can see, does not pass WP:WEB. Those arguing it does, please point out how.

The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  • This means outside of the Trek-world, has anyone actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it? Not that I can find. Only trivial works like the fore mentioned article.--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

– No, you don't get an article of your own, any more than Bonnie Malmat would. But if you were part of a 6.000 person group that helped start a LAN party that was reported on throughout North America, then yes, maybe that group deserves a mention. TrekBBS was the place where those groups began, where their founders came from, and it's still a place where published and established writers and many other Trek notables have joined and participated, and continue to participate. ElHoserGrande 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Good for it! Now please provide proof that it passes WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. I have shown it does NOT pass WP:WEB. It has no verifiable sources so it doesn't pass WP:V...and before anyone says 'but it does!' please READ the ENTIRE WP:V article first. There are no Reliable Sources so it doesn't pass WP:RS. Again...concider the World of Warcraft forums. 2 million registered, active users. No article. Concider the Sci-Fi channel's boards where the writers, directors, and actors post and talk with fans. No article because it doesn't pass wikipedia's standards for inclusion. As it stands the article provides no sources, no proof it passes the fore-mentioned rules/guidelines and no reason it should be kept. BTW: if we even would suggest that the newpaper interview was a vaild source (which it is not) that is only one source. WP:V requires multiple non-trivial sources reporting on the subject (the bbs board itself) and normally most admins set a bar to a minumum of three sources. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom FirefoxMan 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep maybe it doesn't pass WP:WEB but these rules aren't intended to be binding to every single case; clearly a notable website and a worthy article. Thedreamdied 22:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you admit the site does not pass WP:WEB, I don't see on what basis it could be kept. Wikipedia is not a web directory.--RWR8189 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The burden of proof is on those who advocate retaining this article, not on those trying to ditch it. Proponents of keeping this article have yet to provide any affirming evidence that TrekBBS meets the notability standards, in particular an independent source making significant reference to/commentary upon the site. So far, the strongest contention I've seen for notability is the TrekBBS-UGO connection, i.e. #3 under WP:WEB: site is published by well known folks independent from site's creators. Is UGO well known? --EEMeltonIV 00:21, 25 December 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.