Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitcentral


 * 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, no indication that the site itself is notable. The books are already mentioned at the author's article, a message board doesn't become important by itself just because it's started by a guy who's written books. The rest of the arguments fail to say how the site is any more notable than any other fansite; "Many established star trek sites link to this site" is more of an indication of non-notability. "There are other fansites listed on wikipedia" isn't a reason to keep this one. Insisting that this is not a fansite with no other argument to back that conclusion isn't very convincing. - Bobet 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nitcentral
A contested prod (see below). Original rationale for deletion was "Apparent vanity for a fansite". No rationale was given when the prod tag was removed (Liberatore, 2006). 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a contested prod, acutally, but appeared so. (Liberatore, 2006). 09:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. (same problem as Dave and Adam's Card World). Yomangani 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN fansite. Alexa ranking of 1,511,415. --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable - there are two published books (not self-published) associated with the site. Drett 15:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it's the website that is spawned off the two books. If the other way around, I'd agree the site is notable (Liberatore, 2006). 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many articles on message boards and other similar websites on WP.  And there are five Nitpicker's Guides, not two.  It has many users and traffic every day.  I see no evidence of "vanity" in its creation, any more than in that of any other WP article.  If the site is not considered "notable", then may I ask what the criteria are for notability?  I know what the critieria are for general knowledge subjects, but those don't really apply to websites and messages boards, because those things don't generally produce those same criteria, like mention in books or magazines.  None of the material in the article violates OR, verifiability, or any other guideline or policy that leads to deletion.  It shows up in in Google Searches as being mentioned on other sites like here, it's mentioned on Star Trek and sci-fi-related websites, it's spawned other message board sites like this one, etc. Nightscream 01:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT comment Due to the database problems we lost like ~3 hours worth of changes to all articles. Many prods were accidentally removed because those prod additions no longer existed. Because of that it looks like I removed the prod tag (it also happened on a few other articles).  I have no interest in this article. --mboverload @  03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Taking into consideration the related books, Star Trek fan-base popularity, and the website, it is notable enough to keep. Doesn't appear to be an advertisement like Dave and Adam's Card World. Dreadlocke 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN fansite named after best-selling books (instead of the other way around). I was the prodder, and the prod was lost in a database burp about a week ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per rationale above. Combination 21:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does it mean? Nightscream 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Non Notable. Details on notability are in Notability. Dreadlocke 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And why does the issue of whether the site was named after the books or vice versa pertain to its notability? Nightscream 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This site has a long standing in the Star Trek fan site web universe.  Many established star trek sites link to this site.  It provides all to continue to submit nitpicking comments to Star Trek episodes and movies.  It's a lot more than a sequel to five published books. Most particularly, the message board has inspired the trend to place nits (and occasional editorial commentary) on many various different shows and programs, though the Star Trek shows are the heart as they demonstrate the challenges of maintaining consistency in such a universe that has lasted in t.v. shows, movies, animated series and books for over forty years.  The site also has had impacts on the whole idea of nitpicking media shows as well, similar to a fad as say the "Jump the Shark" website. waldnorm 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Nitcentral should be kept as a Wikipedia entry simply because frankly there's no harm in having it be included here. Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article, let alone ever visit Nitcentral at all. Just because a few people don't want it on Wikipedia shouldn't supersede the wishes of a lot more people who would rather it be kept here. This is certainly a case of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Please keep the Nitcentral article on Wikipedia. Thank you. User:MarkWilliam 20:51, 28 July 2006
 * Comment Since I'm not involved in the Trekie community at all, I can't really comment on the actual notability of the site in question. However, "Anyone with objections to it simply don't have to read the article" is not a valid reason to keep it: similar justifications could be made for the most absurd/NN of articles. Icewolf34 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The original rationale for deletion is invalid on both counts. Nitcentral is not a "fansite" (it is a vibrant online community with an eight-year history covering a wide diversity of topics), nor is the entry a "vanity" article (for one thing, the original creator of the site had nothing to do with composing the article). The cursory wording of the original prod shows that the individual who made the recommendation for deletion based it solely on their superficial perception of the topic, without doing any further investigation or providing more congruent reasons why the topic is non-notable. Such activity should be discouraged. --Toddpence 13:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a fansite and a dying stagnant discussion board where arguments are more common than discussion, people dont care about each other or anyone who has a problem with their special people. It is like a high school clique. The person who authored this article is also a moderator there and has been trying to rally the members of nitcentral to come and vote to help it avoid deletion. This is a Non Notable event, place and site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwetruck (talk • contribs) 1:17, 30 July 2006 UTC

The site has had some bickering, but no more than what I have seen in other discussion boards or blogs. Discussion is still going on, and while there's tangents, the main reason people are there is to nit the over forty year old Star Trek universe, television shows, movies, commerials, etc. This site was the most influential in terms of the art of nitpicking, and has had much more impact than the original five books have done. The original author, Phil Ferrand, has long abandonned writing books on this subject, and the web site is now a center of nitpicking that universe. As for the claim that it is "dying," each day a number of posts appear on this board--compared to most blogs and discussion boards, this site still gets a lot of activity. waldnorm

Why should any decent, non-offensive entry like that for Nitcentral be deleted just because some people who never even visit the site in the first place want it so? Don't they have anything else better to do than to find Wiki entries they want to complain about and then try to have be deleted? Do something better with your time and leave the Nitcentral entry alone! But if you want to persist in this immature and idiotic endeavor then just remember that the same can also be done for any entries you naysayers may have added yourselves just by checking your names in the "contribs" link next to your names so you might want to think twice about wanting to have someone else's entries deleted. After all, it's a two-sided blade that cuts both ways. Or to put it another way, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. User:MarkWilliam 19:19, 29 July 2006
 * You can't actually be threatening to delete articles contributed by people who disagreed with your viewpoints? (Not to mention Wikipedia:Point.) Icewolf34 17:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of the arguments provided by the anonymous voter above who didn't sign his post are not only untrue (that it's a fansite, that it's dying or stagnant, that arguments are more common than discussion there, that it's cliquish), but are not even criteria for deletion. But if the person in question can point to WP policy that states that a message board moderator cannot be a Wikipedian, or alert other Wikipedians to such movements for deletion, that fansites are not noteworthy, and so forth, then please do so. Nightscream 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - This site does not pass WP:WEB at all. Fansite articles, like all articles about websites, need to meet those standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitcentral isn't a fansite. Nightscream 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. First this is not a fansite. Second, even if it were there are plenty of fan sites on Wikipedia. Delete this one, then delete them all. Orangehead 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please :-> (Liberatore, 2006). 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as Not Noteworthy fansite. Site is not big name news or is popular with general public.--Rwetruck 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This was this user's second bolded "delete". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Sorry about the double delete. Nightscream is a moderator of Nitcentral and was attempting to get other nitcentral members to sign and register with wikipedia to flood the site with keep votes. Also as stated the site is not noteworthy or notable as per wikipedia rules. WP:WEB There is no evidence of notability to include it in an encyclopedia entry and provides no links to any evidence of notability as outlined by the criteria. The site has won no awards and is not known outside its small user base. --Rwetruck 04:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are called Single purpose accounts, it is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to solicit such activity. Dreadlocke 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment While I disagree with Nightscream's solicitation of votes, I would like to comment that Rwetruck is also a single purpose account. He is a poster who had a very poor experience at the site in question. (Note his previous comment is almost verbatim from a post I made at the site in question, where I am a moderator.) I have made some minor edits in the distance past to Wikipedia if that matters but I have decided to stand mute in this vote due to the conflict of interest. MisterMorgan


 * CommentYes I WAS a valued and appreciated Nitcentral member. Yes Nightscream abused his moderatorial powers there against me and no-one did anything about it. Yes I am upset and yes this is the only thing I have edited on wikipedia, yet. However that does not excuse nightscream from his actions or make Nitcentral any more notable. The basic fact is nightscream has lied about, or otherwise inflated how special or notable Nitcentral is due to his bias there as a moderator. The site is nothing special, abandoned by its owner and run by moderators like Nightscream.--Rwetruck 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, neither Toddpence nor myself are single-purpose Wikipedians. And although I did alert other Nitcentralians to this deletion discussion, I don't know for certain which of those who decided to participate here are. I apologize for instigating some to do this, as I was unaware of the SPA rule until Dreadlocke pointed it out.  As for the accusation that I have lied about Nitcentral's notability, I would point out that I have not made any false statements about its notability, either on this page, or in the article itself.  Nightscream 15:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record, I would like to point out that rwetruck is incorrect, NitCentral has not been abandoned by its owner. Phil may rule with a light hand, but it is still his site, and everyone there is aware of it.  Further, rwetruck, do you really need to take your feud with Nightscream here as well?  I am not going to post a vote either due to my own perceived conflict of interest (though I am not a moderator). Red floyd 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The site is the spin off of a book series and has enough traffic to be notable. It is the product of a recreational organization started by the book series (the Nitpicker's Guild) and considering some of the articles at Wikipedia, I believe it should be kept. Mistrx75


 * Comment Mere amount of traffic does not make a site notable. Having other sites listed on wikipedia that are not notable does bnot mean that a non-notable site should remain. Nitcentral is the advertising site for the books as well as an extension of the books.

As for the other --Rwetruck 03:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)This is not just about my trying to get justice done against Nightscream which did not occur on Nitcentral due to Farrand not caring what happens on the site as he has washed his hands of it as per his email. And yes Floyd I do because no one on Nitcentral did the right thing or attempted to reign in Nightscream and yelled and me to shut up bend over and take it when i was attacked by him and he said his malicious comments and abused his authority to silence someone he was involved in an argument with as a moderator. If you had taken the right and proper actions against nightscream and supported me then this would not be needed.
 * 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.