Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net (2nd VfD)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, despite a considerable number of votes by new users and anons. Defaults to keep. --Allen3 talk 22:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net

[edit]

Vote

[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Merge the useful content with Star Wars v. Star Trekand provide a redirect..
  • First VFD can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Guys, this forum's information is great, it has more than 2000 members, and is worthy of Wikipedia.
  • Keep DXM just kicked in yo
  • Weak delete As the original VfD noted that it would be good to re-run the VfD later, I'll treat this on its own merits. Google shows 832 hits for this Star Wars vs Star Trek fan site. That's not a lot and not enough to make me want to see it go away badly. If someone else knows of some reason that this sit is notable, it woudl sway my vote. -Harmil 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now, since it does have over 2000 members, a benchmark that meets some notability requirements on here. But, if the dicussions are primarialy about other topics other than ST vs SW, then it is just another forum. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is just another vanity article. Dump it. No need for every two-bit forum to have an article on Wikipedia.
  • Captain! There's a quantum infundibulum in the deletium crystals! --FOo 01:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable forumcruft. Xoloz 06:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's delete this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOO. Radiant_>|< 12:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is the second time someone tried to delete it, the fact that this article is creating such a grand fuss, twice in a row, no less, is reason alone for it to be kept. This vote was placed by Majin Gojira (talk · contribs), his 17th edit.
  • Delete, non-notable forum per Google and Alexa (#230,975), Star Trek versus Star Wars already gives them a namecheck. Dcarrano 16:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The page survived the first VFD and its content has improved since then to include far more then just information about the forums. A second VFD is merely people trying to be vindictive. Alyeska 17:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those calling this a vanity website. I guess you missed the points that SD.net is directly related to the STvsSW discussion (which has a Wiki entry) and SD.net has related sections ranging on other topics. It is not a vanity forum entry because it includes information on more then just the forums. Try researching the subject before condeming it. It makes you look immature and selfcentered to judge something from afar without bothering to learn the subject material. Alyeska 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frivolous VfD. Suggested by ComCat, who appears to be delete-happy. RDalton 17:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This vote was RDalton's 19th edit (first edit in September 2004).--Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems the VFDer has been nominating alot of articles for deletion.--Kross 18:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article proved itself last time that it should stay. It is informational and is not advertising. The forums have over 2400 members and is worthy of recognition.--Elfwood 19:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Elfwood has had 5 edits, all to this VfD --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Delete ComCat and the 'vanity-site' accusers instead, for A> failing to do proper research on the article before opening their big giant bazoo or reaching for the delete button, and B> frivolous VfDs. They are not there to be abused. --E. Sn0
Vote signed by E. Sn0 made by 68.11.114.209 --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote was made by Mike castaldo, all users edits have been to this VfD or to the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Keep the site!--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The whole internet subculture of "Star Trek versus Star Wars" has its own article. Many of the major players on the scene are already linked from the article. If the versus debate merits its own article, than so do the sites that best epitomize the debate (since discussing the sites on the versus article directly would only muddy it up,) such as Spacebattles.com and Stardestroyer.net. I also feel compelled to point out that Spacebattles.com only turns up 73 more hits on Google [1] than Stardestroyer.net does, has its own equally sparse article (Spacebattles.com) which suffers nowhere near the unfavorable attention that this one does. GMT 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GMT has 3 edits, all either to this VfD or the nominated article --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If we have articles for spacebattles.com and trekbbs, I don't see how we can justify blocking another very similar site. Plus, its already been up for deletion once. SpringheelJack
This vote is SpringheelJack's first of two edits --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

--24.157.229.112 14:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (this signature was placed at the top of the debate, for no apparent reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment If you want to see vote garnering, check out those two threads I mentioned. User:Mike_Castaldo 00:12, 27 July 2005 (EST)
  • Comment Since you can't actualy make a legitmate case against the wiki entry you try and marginalize the votes that disagree with yours. You claim innoncent on the issue of attacking others, but its false. You quite openly attack those you disagree with and try to marginalize them. Alyeska 20:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am a former member of Stardestroyer.net, having been banned recently here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=72553. As a long time member, I am intimately familiar with the website and its forums, and this puts me in a unique position to judge the merit of this website wielding familiarity and no positive bias. I can honestly say that stardestroyer.net is unequalled in its technical commentaries and as a forum for discussing Startrek versus Starwars, and the various other topics it deals with are also noteworthy. Secondly, there is the matter of consistency. Others have already listed examples such as somethingawful.com, spacebattles.com and so forth - either these must also come up for deletion, or stardestroyer must stay. I do recommend an expanded entry however. PredatorX 10:26, 28 July 2005 (GMT+12)
This vote is PredatorX's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Youre kidding Man in Black.... To say that the LynchPin for the Entire SWvsST debate on the internet is a "non-notable" fansite would be like saying "george lucas had nothing to do with starwars" TTMSHU 12:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's a fansite of little importance. If someone writes an article about the Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate, Stardestroyer.net should probably be mentioned and linked, but the site itself is not significant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If we can keep SomethingAwful and Spacebattles on this site, then SDN can stay. SAMAS 9:10 July 28
  • Keep A) It survived the first one B) Its fairly notable C) It has some basis from some other pages - it does need to be expanded on a bit more, however --RN 21:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The site's simply a retread of the SW-v-ST article, which actually does mention SD.net. No need to be redundant, delete it.
  • Comment Oh really. Since when does the STvsSW article have mentions of Creationism vs Evolution? The entry is more then just the STvsSW content. Alyeska 17:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a reason to retread your comments when they and the rebuttals to them are right below? Mike_Castaldo 15:46, 30 July 2005 (EST)
  • Strong Delete This site doesn't have anything special about it, and certaintly doesn't need a wiki open on it. Toren122 Aug. 1st, 2005.
Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Informative, objective and entertaining. Chardok Aug. 1st, 2005.
Vote is user's 6th edit. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Provincinal page with little unique info. S_Brown Aug. 2nd , 2005.
Vote is user's first and only edit --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote was made by 147.133.30.233. --Allen3 talk 21:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete They aren't interested in discussing ST vs SW. Anyone that goes to the site to discuss it in support of the ST side is banned for being a 'troll'.

Argumen -- er, Discussion

[edit]

Moved mudslinging to discussion page. Have at it!

68.51.80.209 00:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Neocapitalist, too lazy to sign in)[reply]

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stardestroyer.net_(2nd_VfD)&oldid=1080262962"