Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFOP: StarBase 118 RPG

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UFOP: StarBase 118 RPG

This article is pure advertising. Please delete it from Wikipedia. ResurgamII 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • "We are the editors of Wikipedia and we are committed to deleting your article - Richfife 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the article asserts notability of the subject. Is there a reason this isn't speediable? My Alt Account 19:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not advertising as such. Instead it is an entry that records the existence of a community that has been in existence since 1994. Although a web-based community, there is an argument that a web-based community that has been in existence for over a decade is in fact as important as an actual geographical community, both in terms of how its members related to one another and its role in everyday life. There is indeed an external link, however, this is referring people to more info on the community. As such, I do not see how this is any different to a page on the City of London with say a link to the London tourist board. I would therefore strongly feel that this entry should not be deleted. I see nothing in the deletion policy that says this should be deleted -speedily or otherwise. Thank you for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.104.118 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - "If you want to learn more, just head to our website and click on the "Prospective Members Entrance" link on our index page. We'd love to have you join our group -- see you soon!" That does not sound like advertising to you? The article does not sound encyclopedic as well (and please sign your name with ~~~~).ResurgamII 19:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Just because it's not for profit doesn't mean it's not advertising. This article would make a very nice MySpace page, but it is not a Wikipedia article. --Jaysweet 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I made this comment, the article is no longer so ad-like, but I retain my "strong delete" stance: Now that it doesn't sound like an ad, the lack of notability is painfully obvious. Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but here's the score: If WP:NOT means my band can't have a Wikipedia page, then your trekkie forum can't have a Wikipedia page. Them's the breaks. --Jaysweet 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Article has now been re-written. Is it now okay? ~~R.

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I spent years with Star Trek PbEMs. I ran a couple, even. I only barely heard of this group (and I'm not even certain I'm positively identifying them as being what I recall), and in the fairly exhaustive survey of the Star Trek fanbase that I have on hand (in liquid metal: the science fiction film reader; ISBN 1-903364-87-6; particularly Henry Jenkins III's treatment in "Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching"), it is not mentioned at all in the author's survey of the net community. As such, I can conclude fairly easily that this group has not made a substantial and lasting contribution within their field of influence, nor have they been recognized as an exemplar of the field. As such, the article about them should be deleted, particularly since we can't verify any information about them from Reliable Sources
  • Note that I could have said all of this by saying WP:WEB, but given that these are new contributors who don't understand Wikipedia policy... I figure they deserve a little more, you know? Captainktainer * Talk 04:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete already per Captainktainer and concur that the newbie here may be wasting our time in entirely good faith. My Alt Account 04:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As Spock would say, "Fascinatingly deletable." Utterly non-notable. MikeWazowski 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if a search doesn't even bring it up, like what the person who went in depth on notability said, then it must be gone. guitarhero777777 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Good faith, pointless article. Axem Titanium 01:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean I'm going against the grain and saying that this should be kept. This is the oldest and longest running Star Trek play by E-mail game. This is a notable game among Star Trek PbEM players. If deleted Star_Trek_games#Role-Playing_Games entry ought to be expanded. --Pinkkeith 15:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment just noticed that the creator of the site is a member of Wiki. User:Wolf530 I was trying to look for references regarding their notability. I know they have been mentioned in Star Trek fan magazines, but I don't know if they have been mentioned by web-based magazines or not. --Pinkkeith 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. +Fin- 16:40, 12 September 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.