Talk:Starmen.Net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2007. The result of the discussion was delete.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Other deletion discussions

December 2004: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starmen.net

April 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starmen.Net

[edit] Old discussion

As the writer of this page, I would like to know if it is an okay thing to have a separate entry on before expanding it. If it turns out that I can and you see any mistakes I have made, please do not hesitate to correct me. Thank you.

Don't tell me the "Don't feed the What" fad is gonna cross over here as well... --SMWhat 04:22, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This appears to be an advert rather than an encyclopedia article -- Move to VfD ? -- Derek Ross 04:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Starmen.net has actually made quite a splash concerning Nintendo. Miyamoto even mentioned its petition to release Mother 3 in an interview. Also, in Nintendo Power issue 145, the fanart section (I forget what it is called) mentioned that a lot of people had drawn EarthBound pictures--"and it's not even a theme month!" This was because of Starmen.net--the staff asked visitors to draw EarthBound pictures and mail them in at a certain date. And besides, there are individual articles about certain popular webcomics, why not idividual articles about a popular site? --SMWhat 01:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, fine. That's the sort of stuff that should be in a proper encyclopedia article but if you look at what we've got just now you'll see that it's just stuff you could find out by going to the website itself -- and that's the sort of writing you get in an advert not an encyclopedia article. If you want to write a proper article it should contain history of the website, significance of the website, and a short description of it. The one short explanatory paragraph that you wrote above is worth far more than the entire existing article at the moment because it tells us why the website is significant and that's information that isn't obvious through visiting the site itself. Take a look at All your base are belong to us if you want to see an example of how to do this sort of thing properly. -- Derek Ross 15:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, schoolwork and stuff.

I've edited this entry to make it more of an encyclopedia entry, and I've written a history that includes the huge impact Starmen.Net has had on the Nintendo fanbase. I feel that this is grounds for this entry to stay. -wm (alex@swankgeneration.com)

Your edits improved the article a lot (although I see that they've now been reverted again). I have no big objections to the article as you finally wrote it. We have plenty of others like it and it may well be worth keeping now. Unfortunately it seems to have been reverted to the earlier, poor version and then protected so that it cannot be fixed. -- Derek Ross 15:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having checked the page history, I can understand why you protected starmen.net. Unfortunately you have also reverted some major improvements made, as far as I can see, in perfectly good faith by the last contributor. These have changed the article from being one worth deleting to being one worth keeping. Unfortunately people won't realise that unless they check the page history. This is rather unfair given that the page has been added to VfD. It as if you decided to make the article look as bad as possible and then protect it so that it can't be fixed and we both know that you didn't intend to do that. Perhaps you would consider moving back to the last revision by 24.158.233.251 which appears to be the best one so that people can judge the article on the best form it's likely to take. -- Derek Ross 16:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, and will put the biggest version back so it can be seen during the vote. When I did the revert the only edit I saw was the wholesale removal of "current staff" which I assumed to be simple vandalism. - Hephaestos|§ 16:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just made a big edit to the page, so I think it's best I say a few things about it here. I noticed this article because it was on VfD for the second time, and as the article previously stood, I think they had a point. The article had excessive detail on some things, most notably the staff list and the sections. Wikipedia really isn't the place for stuff like that; people interested in the site at that level of detail can visit the site. All Wikipedia should be is a good overview. As such, I removed the staff list and changed the explanation of each individual section to a brief explanation of how the site is laid out and what sections it has. I also trimmed the history section to focus less on minutiae and to give what I consider a more objective (and less breathless) account of the site. Finally, I removed some stuff that was just shout-outs and nonsense. I think that the article is better off for being less bloated.

Also, as the site itself consistently refers to itself as Starmen.Net, I moved the page from Starmen.net to Starmen.Net. It's a small thing, but it's best to be as accurate as possible. modargo 19:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] vfd

Alexa rank is 60,000+. Unofficial fan site. Not notable. Meelar 05:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - EarthBound has a link to it, which is all that is called for -- Cyrius 05:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - Going to have to agree with you. No need to explain the site; it does that itself. shadow 06:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Starmen.net has actually made quite a splash concerning Nintendo. Miyamoto even mentioned its petition to release Mother 3 in an interview. Also, in Nintendo Power issue 145, the fanart section (I forget what it is called) mentioned that a lot of people had drawn EarthBound pictures--"and it's not even a theme month!" This was because of Starmen.net--the staff asked visitors to draw EarthBound pictures and mail them in at a certain date. And besides, there are individual articles about certain popular webcomics, why not idividual articles about a popular site? --SMWhat 05:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I'd add all this to the article, but I am SWAMPED with schoolwork, and unable to make more than minor/smallish edits at a time.
    • Keep for now. Quinwound 07:54, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: looks like an ad and not much more —Tkinias 08:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not great and still a bit of an advert but much better than it was. Of interest to Nintendo players perhaps. -- Derek Ross 15:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (well, I'm leaning towards "keep"). Given the edit activity on this article since its inception I get the distinct impression that the starmen.net website is some sort of "troll heaven" and I think it would be useful for people considering using the site to have this issue covered here in an NPOV manner. (However I've seen no mention of this facet in the article yet, though I admit I've only skimmed it.) - Hephaestos|§ 17:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. EarthBound is enough. ⇒ whkoh [talk] 09:34, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let Earthbound link do for this. - Wguynes 20:18, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, nonnotable --Jiang 19:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, this sets a bad precidence. --User:J.J. 10:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (note: this was added after the actual vfd was done; see this diff)
  • delete, screams of advertising. Not noteworthy enough.

[edit] VfD

On April 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starmen.Net. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 06:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doubt of advertisement. addition...Largest EB fan site?

This article has doubt of advertisement of an individual site. In addition,"Largest Earthbound fan site" might be Japanese "Mother Party(Mother-jp.Net)". Did "Starmen manager" make this article? Is public domain wikipedia used for the self-interest? Why can fan site of the Japanese birth game able to be defined and defined the Web site in the US as the maximum? There is a possibility Japanese fan site is larger because the series goes out besides EB in japan. Delete this article at once. In addition, exclude advertising links of starmen.net pasted to a lot of articles. These activities... excessive plain... I'M AMAZED......--85.68.154.177 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't advertising the site. Starmen.net is a notable fansite (for reasons which have been stated numerous times - see previous AFDs). Also, it is possible that there is an Earthbound fansite larger than Starmen.net. However, according to the latest site statistics it definitely does not seem likely. If you can provide proof that a larger fansite exists, then show us and we will remove the text from the article. I also find your post to be a bit racist, claiming that only a Japanese site such as Mother-jp.net can be the largest Earthbound fansite because Earthbound was made in Japan. It's perfectly possible (and currently it seems to be a fact) that a North American site such as Starmen.net can be the largest fansite. It's also ironic, considering that Mother-jp.net and Starmen.net are owned by the same person.--Kurotsyn 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aeon Genesis

i searched Aeon Genesis, a game site, and the first thing was this page. does anyone know anything about it and should there be an article? Evaunit666 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)