Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Army of Yamatai


 * 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 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Star Army of Yamatai
non-notable Internet roleplaying bulletin board. Only 37 unique Google hits and only 4 sites link to it. The Google results seem to indicate it's won some web awards, but they're really a dime a dozen and none of them seem to be given out by a well-known source (it would be nice if someone could confirm this though, I'm not entirely up to speed on web awards). Site does not appear to pass WP:WEB. -Elmer Clark 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Creator removed PROD notice with the explantion, "Please don't delete the article :-(" -Elmer Clark 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. -- Nish kid 64 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nish. JoshuaZ 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I added "please don't delete" but am not the creator (I'm Star Army's admin). It was likely one of my community's members. The notice said it could be removed if there was objection to deletion, so and I removed it because I objected. While my site isn't huge, I believe wholeheartedly it isn't insignificant. It has members from all over the world, from Japan and South Africa, to the U.K., Argentina, and of course home in the U.S. It recieves about fourty thousand visitors yearly and has set itself above the masses of fly-by-night crap role-play sites that give online text-based role-playing games a bad name. Our presence at conventions and close connection to the internet phenomenon that is 4chan are also significant to those involved. For these reasons, I ask that the mark for deletion be removed.

Thanks, Wes


 * Unforunately, with the Internet being intrinsically international, having international members isn't much of a claim to notability. In order to merit an article, the website must demonstrate meeting criteria proposed in WP:WEB. This criteria is derived from notability guildelines, verifiability policies, and the availability of reliable sources, which allow us to avoid original research. This all helps to build an informative, neutral article. Remember that Wikipedia is also not a web directory or indiscriminate collection of information. --Wafulz 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, Wes and I are not the same person. Please don't jump to conclusions. :) While I have no objections to removing the article if it indeed does not meet Wikipedia's standards, WP:WEB seems to be unduly harsh, and doesn't seem to be fully enforced. Under its strict definition, even a popular, critically acclaimed webcomic like Dominic Deegan would fail the WP:WEB test, since the article on Dominic Deegan itself makes no attempt to offer evidence that it passes WP:WEB in the first place. I'm not looking to stir up trouble here, but it would be greatly appreciated if WP:WEB could be further clarified, as it seems somewhat subjective right now. GoldPanda 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your comment on your talk page. --Wafulz 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable RPG board. Danny Lilithborne 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless they agree to make me an admin on their site. My Alt Account 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I am a member of Star Army, this does not meet Wiki policy. Sekiko

I bow to Seki's judgement, but please tell me how this site is any less notable than this guy's webcomic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC/MS. The webcomic's creator and the article's creator appears to share the same first name. -- GoldPanda 07:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in need of a lot of clean-up. That article no more meets the standards than this one. If you find such articles on your journey through wikipedia, you are strongly encouraged to nominate them for deletion. --Kunzite 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that I'm too new around here to be going around "prodding" other people's pages, but I recommend looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics. -- GoldPanda 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting to prod them. (The prodding system doesn't work very well--there are people who go through the category and remove entries without explanation or good reason.) Just go straight to the deletion debate. I am familiar with that web project. If you read the first paragraph, it links directly to website notability guidelines, (aka WP:WEB).  Webcomics tend to create articles for a lot of non-notable sites.  They get deleted quite a bit too. see the archive.  Most of the keeps are also "no concensus keeps".  Someone will re-nominate it in a few months so that we may try to reach a concensus on the article.  --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A surprising number of articles that were marked "deleted" were *not* deleted in the archive. It was good for a laught at least. Thanks for the link. :) -- GoldPanda 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say [award] alone makes it pass WP:WEB. -Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.233.42 (talk • contribs)
 * Respectfully, I wouldn't say that. Maybe I'm just wrong, but a web award has to be pretty darn well known before I'd put much stock in it. My Alt Account 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, the standards shouldn't be based on opinion. If we stick to the standards as written, then Star Army qualifies as being notable. The article is beneficial to Wikipedia - Sure, it's not very important, but it is interesting and informationally useful and unbiased; it isn't just an excuse to link to my site! - Let's keep it around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.233.42 (talk • contribs)
 * The standards certainly do not mean to imply that any web award merits noteworthiness, just particularly well-known ones. Skimming over that site, people can just "submit" links, so I would hazard to guess that it doesn't have the most stringent selection process in the world, and probably isn't considered a very serious award. -Elmer Clark 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and reply Even if the award were notable, the problem is that it did not win an award. It was "Featured Site of the Week" according to the above link.   I have grave doubts about this award being notable.  It seems more like a web-gimic than any serious web-based award. This does not meet WP:WEB --Kunzite 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Search [|the recipients] and you'll find it there too with their highest-level award.


 * Please sign your posts. This shows nothing other than the site has been ranked "excellent" by readers. It says nothing of winning an award. This discussion is moot anyway, that award that does not meet the level prescribed in the WP:WEB footnote. --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[from talk page:] I will speak up.

Some SA players have discussed this issue. Though we understand, in a vague sort of way, that we are not up to snuff with Wikipedia, I find that if several webcomics, some of dubious fame or importance, are allowed stubs under their own WikiProject, why can't Star Army exist on Wikipedia as well? We've established ourselves well enough, and we are one of the few all-original RP universes that has any true depth.

I only ask for balance.


 * I agree on this point. While I stated that SA probably isnt of sufficient note to have a Wiki article, the Project Webcomics issue is a prime example of blatant stubs and advertisements, most of them with little note and little following. While a project for webcomics certainly has a place, webcomics should follow the same rules everyone else does. Nonnotable little ass-end bits of the web dont belong on Wiki. Sekiko

I also agree with this. Star Army has reinstated my interest in the world of roleplaying. While some might not like the level of technology present I myself feel it adds to the ability to incorperate new and exciting things of ones own creation into the game that simply wouldn't fit into so many others. I would find it difficult to find many if any other online roleplaying games that have such depth and yet are easy to get involved with and play. DRIKER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.78.88 (talk • contribs)


 * I am glad you enjoy it, but that's not enough to establish notability. See WP:WEB, and tell me if you think it qualifies. -Elmer Clark 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [Crossposted From Talk Page] WP:WEB is a guideline intended to help remove useless content and link spam; however, this article is legitimate and therefore the guidelines should not be used to delete it. I don't know why, but you seem to have developed a personal vendetta against the article. WEP or not, it's a decent, informative little article that will improve over time as all Wiki articles do. Deleting it would be a loss to Wikipedia. -Wes


 * Please do not accuse others of vendetta's plese always assume good faith. WP:WEB has very well-definied and open criteria for web content.  The site must have had multiple, non-trivial messages in any media outlet.  (i.e. a featured article in a newspaper, trade magazine, etc.. not just a mention in a list of links.  My personal home page, for example, has its URL published in newspapers in the US, UK, Hungary, etc.. but no feature was done on it, therefore it doesn't meet these guidelines.)  OR the site must have won an award from a major, notable award. (i.e. not an "award mill" like the above mentioned site.), or finally, the site must have had its content reproduced by a notable media company (i.e. if somone took your RPG stories and turned them into a book. Though, it couldn't be self-published.)  These are really, really lax criteria that all serve to enforce the official policy Wikipedia is NOT a web directory.  If there are other articles that you have found on wikipedia that don't meet these guidelines; by all means nominate the article for deletion.  We have a lot of clean-up to do on this front and it's slow going. --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just find it indescribably disappointing that my community, with its hundreds of members and the thousands of days and dollars I've put into it, cannot be given even two paragraphs in what is supposed to be the world's collection of knowledge. It's like me saying your mother wasn't important enough to be in your family tree. -Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.140.114 (talk • contribs)
 * I can see where you're coming from, but if we included all such communities, we'd be swamped with articles that are of little encyclopedic value really to anyone except members. Internet forums are only notable if they're well-known outside...themselves, if that makes sense. -Elmer Clark 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I have no vendetta against your website, I've never even heard of it. I've simply been trying to explain our reasons for deletion to you to help you understand why this ISN'T a "personal vendetta" against you/your site, but just application of policy.  I have already voted; I was trying to do you a favor. -Elmer Clark 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well...if this has to be deleted, please allow it to be recreated in the future when I somehow create some worldwide news. At that point, I'll return and repost it.


 * 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.