Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Confederation of Interstellar Planets

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. The anonymous contributors don't provide any policy or guideline reasons for keeping, and most of the sources provided do not talk directly about the organization in question. The notability guidelines ask for multiple non-trivial, third-party sources. There only appears to be one, which is not "multiple". --Coredesat 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Confederation of Interstellar Planets

  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}}

This article still does not currently address the problem that was raised on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP: There is no evidence or sources cited on how the UCIP (United Confederation of Interstellar Planets) website is notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I also completelly disagree. UCIP is one of the pioneers in Star Trek simming on Internet. It also have valuable information and works on a Information Developing in her Academy Courses. The Wikipedia have information about Corporations and business. Why not having about Internet Institutions like UCIP?
  • Hmmm I disagree as a long standing member of this organization; UCIP is notable for being one of the longest running Star Trek and General SciFi Role Playing groups on the internet. UCIP has a database system that has been adapted by several Sim organizations to fit their needs. This is truly a notable entry and a notable group. 206.229.248.249 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Being a member of UCIP for nearly two years and holding nearly every imaginable post; I stipulate that the organization is a real online SIMming facility that incorporates Star Trek and other Sci-Fi genres with a very diverse group members. Prior to talk or mention of deletion of this valid article within Wikipedia, perhaps a visit is in order? - With regards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.166.73 (talk • contribs)
    • The question is not whether the organization in question exists (although hoaxes do happen at WP), but rather whether it is notable or important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. eaolson 04:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a long-standing member of UCIP (seven years this December) I feel that UCIP has been, and still is, one of the most notable SIM organization on the net! Tango Fleet, StarTrekPBEM.com, they've all found somthing to model off of in our organzation. Just the other day a non-member told me we were the "secret organization," with "so many SIMs, an excellent infrastructure, but no public apperences." I think that after over a decade of service to the fans of Science Fiction, UCIP has earned a page here.
  • Strong Delete 98 unique google hits [1] and an alexa rank of over 6 million [2]. Clearly fails WP:WEB. The article consists of original research, fanlistcruft and sycophantic copyright warnings. Pointless and puerile.-- IslaySolomon | talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as StarCruft. It also has a whopping 13 sites linking to it. [3] eaolson 04:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • UCIP is a pioneer for Star Trek RPGs on the Internet. Having been around since 1994, and, having been a member myself since it's formative years, I can state definitively that it has defined SIMming on the internet, over IRC, and via email. They were the first to have an Academy system - that all other Academy Systems are modelled on. They were the first to have a universal IC environment for their systems that others have tried to duplicate, and never succeeded with. They pioneered the first character database, which others have built and expanded upon. To say that none of this is 'noteworthy' is ludicrous, and is a completely uninformed opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) . — 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment In order to inform your opinion, may I suggest that you read WP:WEB, the notability criteria for web content. Considering the creator's edit history [4]a look at WP:AUTO and WP:COI might be a good idea too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I know for a fact you guys were not the first to have an "Academy" System, since I graduated one before you set your sim group up! EnsRedShirt 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No real assertion of notability. Resolute 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most internal links point to the organization's website, and it offers no references to support claims like "it has defined SIMming on the internet, over IRC, and via email." On the off chance such information can be produced, the article still reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia article. Consequentially 04:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So what you are asking for are citations to verify the assertions. It would have been nice if some one had said that in the first place. We are endeavouring to find the links and interviews that have been done regarding this organization by external third parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.56.114 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The message "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is displayed every time you edit a page. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, but you weren't talking about the above comments were referring to notable, so we were discussing what makes it notable... third party verficaition and notable are not the same thing. 70.69.56.114 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Jaeneva
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for fancruft. EVula 06:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all that comes before me. EnsRedShirt 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I tried CSDing a couple of incarnations of this for precisely the reasons outlined by those advocating deletion, but if this is the way it has to go, then this is the way it has to go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. I believe that this organisation and its website have provided a social and developmental environment for numerous amateur authors who have through the use of the media of play by email simulations and IRc simulations have enhanced and honed skills in the development of decriptive and narrative writing. If some of these people are involved in studying English then the site and its associated aimulations may contribute in a very positive way to the educational process. I also believe that the site develops a multiracial and multicultural positive ethos with contributors from all around the world exchanging views and opinions on a common topic. This while not being unique is something to be encouraged in our world today. 86.141.109.152 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Kang 86.141.109.152 14:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. UCIP was voted the "best StarTrek role playing site" in an online readers poll. The editorial staff at Interenet Life Magazine did not rank it, and this sub-section of the ILM is run by fans, not serious journalistic contributors. Take this quote, directly from the opening paragraph: "To sort it out, we asked our online readers to vote on their favorite spots, from Best Overall Resource to Best Anti-Trek Site." That isn't exactly like winning a Webby, and I don't consider it to denote notability. Consequentially 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This org has gone down hill for the past five years and the only reason they are trying to keep the wikipedia article is to try and use it as an Ad to bring in more members to their strugling sims. As I recall that is not what Wikipedia is for. - Ariela 24.218.160.243 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. The point of this conversation is to determine whether or not the article is suitable for placement in the encyclopedia, so derogatory comments from ex-members of the organization should not be posted here. At any rate, we are attempting to establish the noteability of this article, and have provided several sources. Here is where UCIP is mentioned in Yahoo! Internet Life: http://web.archive.org/web/20001119220700/www.zdnet.com/yil/url/9812/9812a.html. I am still trying to find the exact article where it mentions UCIP was voted best Star Trek RPG, but the archives are tempermental. Hopefully I will find it shortly. Gerrin Chaye 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny all this... lets look at other articles included on wikipedia in a similar vane. First, Alt.starfleet.rpg, an RPG community that originated from Usenet according to the article. Second we have Christian_Gamers_Alliance which is a community for Christians interested in role playing games. Third we have Diversity_Fleet which is a subsidiary group of The Simming League and consists of (near as one can tell) a single SIM. Finally there is the Star_Trek_Simulation_Forum which also originated on AOL, much like UCIP did. Given that UCIP has well over 15 SIMs and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 150 members (and I am being conservative) from across the globe it seems a little asinine that these articles exist and are not under threat of deletion while the UCIP one is. Further to this, Wikipedia itself references UCIP in one of its articles, Simming. To have noted UCIP in an article is clear evidence UCIP is indeed a notable organization or else it would not have been included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.52.151.93 (talk • contribs) .
    • From what I can tell, alt.starfleet.org and Christian Gamers Alliance are both notable on their own. The Star Trek Simulation Forum is notable, in my opinion, because it appears to be an official, Paramount-approved entity. Diversity Fleet, on the other hand, is non-notable, and as such, I've submitted its AfD. EVula 17:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Are we discussiong Opinion or Fact? I wouldn't call either alt.starfleet.org or Christian Gamers Alliance 'notable'. I also would not call the Star Trek SIMulation Forum 'notable' as it has not made any large advances in SIMming for the online community as this organization has 70.69.56.114 17:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Jaeneva
        • My conclusion is just that, my conclusion. Another editor is free to submit an AfD for those three articles, but I didn't feel that they warranted one (as opposed to Diversity Fleet, which I did feel warranted a deletion). EVula 17:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The "if article X exists so should article Y" argument doesn't hold much water in this case. The existence of the articles cited by 70.52.151.93 is not a precedent for the existence of this article. It simply means that we have so far failed to delete them. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Its not a matter of if X exists then Y exists. Its a matter of consistancy. If one article is to be deleted only days after it was put up because it is deemed not noteworthy by an admin, why do organizations with equal or lesser notability not face the threat of deletion? The admins are asking for evidence of UCIPs notability, yet have not questioned the notability (to my knowledge) of the organizations above. I guess the question is, what flagged UCIP's article so quickly in comparison to the others? Further, why wasn't the previous UCIP article flagged, in which there were a copious number of unsupported or uncited claims, as well as a link to an article on one of the founding members?
Comment Again, a false premise. Any organisation without notability (or perceived as such) risks having its article deleted here. Just because any given organisation hasn't been nominated for deletion yet doesn't mean that it won't be - it just means nobody's done so yet. You're welcome to do so if you feel that the standards being applied to UCIP mean that any other organisation is also non-notable. The place to question the notability of other organisations, however, is in their own articles or AfDs, rather than here. What flagged this particular article in comparison to any other is probably the simple fact that someone found it. I found one incarnation of it at the New Pages list, for example. Additionally, the previous UCIP article was flagged and was in fact deleted. See the link at the outset of this AfD. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But where are the facts? We have been asked to provide hard evidence that UCIP is notable, and we are doing that. Therefore, I must ask that you submit hard evidence for these other organizations as well, or we are talking about a double standard.

Comment. You're confusing the various issues. This is the place to provide evidence that UCIP is notable and you're certainly having a good go at doing that. The place to provide evidence for the notability or otherwise of other organisations is in their articles or - should it come to it - their AfDs. The only thing up for discussion here is "Should the article on the UCIP be deleted?" The other organisations have very little to do with the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

KEEP: Too much evidence, this is a legit organization, per articles, structure etc. Here is a question for all you "deleters" :: How many articles in wikipedia are currently incorrect or not updated?

Comment. The quality of other articles is not a factor within this debate. You're arguing that we should let bad content stay in the encyclopedia because there is bad content in the encyclopedia. Bzzzt. Wrong. You get rid of the bad whenever you can find it, and keep an eye out. Consequentially 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Further, nobody's saying UCIP doesn't exist (which I presume is what you mean by saying that it's a "legit" organisation). I exist, you exist and so does everyone else contributing to this discussion, but that doesn't mean we should all write articles on ourselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Numerous items concerning the notability of UCIP has been given, which is what was asked to be done originally. Those references have been stated in the article. Now, given that, why is deletion still being discussed?

For two main reasons. The first is process: AfDs run for about 5 days, sometimes a bit longer depending on how rapidly admins spring into action or how contentious the issue is - they can be closed earlier, but only in situations where the article's already been deleted (a speedy delete), or the nominator retracts the nomination, that kind of thing. The second this is that, as a number of contributors here have said, the evidence provided isn't too great. The award cited was a fan poll, for example - and as other users have also pointed out, it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB which is a useful thing for it to meet in order to be notable. Yes, information has been provided, but it isn't necessarily enough. Therefore, deletion is still being discussed partly because that's the way we do things and partly because notability hasn't yet been proven. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to relative notability in this category. The about.com and yahoo magazine mentions are par excellent among simming organizations, few of which receive any notability in 3rd party publications. The issues with the article's content can be salvaged by better attention to the whole category. Unixan 06:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn organization. --Pboyd04 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as this AfD has only produced one third party source listing, TewfikTalk 01:03, 26 October 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.