Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus, vote so marred by sockpuppetry and outsiders that it might be best to rerun it at a later date. - SimonP 22:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stardestroyer.net
Vanity and website advertising. Delete. Current version already merged with Star Trek versus Star Wars, previous version was advertising, suffered from serious POV issues and ultimately was an advertisement for a website. Rev Prez 13:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Given the size and influence of the site, it does merit inclusion as an article. Majin Gojira 17:41, 30 May 2005

Delete. The subject of the article is hardly substantial enough to merit notability. 65.82.235.254 16:42, 30 May 2005

Keep. It should be noted here that Revprez, the person who has started this Vfd, has also repeatedly vandalised the base page, AND was banned from the BBS which the entry discusses due to trollish behavior over there. -Robgea 18:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral for the moment - article seems to big. If author keeps removing VFD tag, delete. --Kiand 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC) Delete due to infighting and obvious vote garnering starting to piss me off. --Kiand 22:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep. I do not believe the nominator for VfD is doing this in the interests of removing "advertising" or maintaining the objectivity of Wikipedia but as a part of his personal agenda, considering that he was banned from the site in question. Also, the maintainer of the website is not the author of the article. RDalton 19:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Rev Prez's stance is one solely based on exacting a bitter personal vendetta against a message board which banned him. --Spanky The Dolphin 20:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep' Rev Prez is a known troll who has harassed a great many forums. He has been banned from SD.net for violating board policy and is now seeking a vendetta against SD.net for this. As already mentioned by others this Wiki entry is not authored by the author of Stardestroyer.net Alyeska 20:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Rev Prez is doing this for personal reasons rather than in accordance with the wiki rules for deletion. Fearghul 20:11, 28 May 2005

Keep Aside from what has already been stated, what are these 'serious POV issues'? - Shroom Man 777 210.213.149.252 20:20, 28 May 2005

Comment can I remind people, that anonymous users, and very new users with no substansial contributions CANNOT vote. --Kiand 20:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is obvious that revprez is doing this because of personal reasons, not because of an actual fault with the article that he has vandalised several times. Ubiquitous ALI_G.

Keep Stardestroyer.net is a specialist sight which would not be interesting to some one other than if they were looking for information on the startrek v starwars debate. There for it would pointless to advertises this site and there for it is my belief that the page in question dose not constitute advertising. It also may give vital information to some one confused by the purpose of stardestoryer.net and as such should be allowed to stay. 81.153.150.165 21:15, 28 May 2005

Comment. I urge any admin considering this VfD to check the voters' contributions, with Kiand's comment in mind. Phil s 20:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment I also urge any admin considering this VfD to review Revprez's edit histories. He has repeatedly vandalized the page that this VfD is being conducted on as well as the Star Trek vs Star Wars page. He is carrying out a vendetta against SD.net and SB.com for having been banned from those forums. This is a personal vendetta for Revprez and he is using Wikipedia as his tool to try and hurt other forums. Alyeska 20:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Kaind is mistaken, if he had taken the time to read the actual rules on a vfd, it states quite clearly that new and anon users can contribute and vote, but they MAY be discounted by the admin. Fearghul 20:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never met an admin that doesn't anything other than strike and discount votes which are obviously being garnered from external sources. You could also try spelling my name right... --Kiand 21:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment Some info on Revprez. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=14357364&oldid=14357316 He vandalized someones report of vandalism against him. Alyeska 20:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable authority on its subject matter. However, all that useless forum vanity garbage needs to go. I suggest everyone taking part in personal attacks leave it off this page. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 20:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - The site is widely reknowned for it's objective stances on the SW vs. ST debate. I am in agreement that touting the forum on a wiki entry may be a bit much, but SDN is what it is and what it has always been. That is, a vast storehouse of SW and ST knowledge compiled over several years from several knowledgeable sources.Chardok 19:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I am convinced that Revprez is nominating this article as a vendetta against Stardestroyer, and I think that Stardestroyer is a notable website, particularly because of its very active forums. Academic Challenger 23:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Whether the VfD nom is good faith or not is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or not (likewise the sockpuppetry shouldn't influence voting). --W(t) 23:52, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

First off, there is no sockpuppetry going on, secondly, Something Awful's forums have an entire article devoted to them, so this article is hardly "advertising" 210.131.198.82 00:25, 29 May 2005


 * Comment: Alexa Rank is 260,472. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete nn. ad.  Xcali 01:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - No less notable than iichan or 4chan. Iceberg3k 03:04, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, needs cleanup. Some notability. Megan1967 04:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: It should be noted that I was banned from SDN for trollish behavior, as well as from three other forums where I've trolled in discussions related to religion and politics. I guess in the experience of some posting here, that means I should hold a grudge or something.  But even Darkstar has to admit that SDN of the most informative sites related to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate; his site wouldn't be up if it weren't.  It continues that rare tradition in fan culture of examining beloved content with an empirical eye.  If SWTC has had an impact on the debate noteworthy of its own page, then SDN may deserve its own as well.  And the boards likewise lend themselves to rich discussion; there's nothing else out there that comes close in SDN's category.  So I have no idea where all this "vendetta" crap is coming from.  Still, the entry as stands doesn't even pass the laugh test.  It's a vain, self-serving promotion.  I've tried to work out the POV issues, but if people keep reverting it to the same old crap rather than expanding the stub then I don't see why it should stay. I don't intend to revert it back; the opening hook I wrote is in Star Trek versus Star Wars now.  The question is whether the article is salvageable.  With that, I'm changing my vote to weak keep.  --Rev Prez 06:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment You have also trolled here at Wikipedia Revprez. Would you like me to post what you have done on the Vandalism in Progress page? I see multiple violations on your part. Alyeska 06:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Sure, you're free to post them. --Rev Prez 06:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The SDN entry is not against the regulations of Wikipedia.--Yenchin 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the changes made to this entry today, I'm changing my vote to a keep. --Rev Prez 06:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm changing my vote to delete. The entry is five paragraphs. The half of the second paragraph is an explanation of the SDN abbreviation, and the other half lists Michael Wong's fanfiction (is it customary to advertise individual fanfics?). The fifth paragraph ends with a sentence (there are, again, only two) that simply restates the third paragraph--which in turn restates a fragment in the opening hook. The fourth paragraph--yet again another two sentence number--is half "Michael Wong likes Star Wars" and "AOTC:ICS supports SW over ST"; the Star Trek versus Star Wars article already discusses this. So really, what additional information of value follows the first paragraph? --Rev Prez 08:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 10:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, since I'm the only one who's worked on the first paragraph, let's just call it a delete. Final answer. --Rev Prez 15:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article in no way violates wiki protocol. Further, given that the charges of a personal vendetta appear to be true, I suggest keeping it soley to spite to fool attempting to misuse this resource. --D@niel 1136, 29 May 2005 (EST)


 * In what way are they true. --Rev Prez 15:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You come here and you exclusivley target SDnet and pages related to it for massive deletions of text, without discussing it in the talk pages of the entries. When people ask you to come to the talk pages you ignore it and continue rampant deletion, and slap a VfD on the page to continue this. When you're reported for vandalism of the page in question you go to the Vandalism in Progress page, and edit the entry (seen here), changing it's report from one agaisnt you to one against the person who reported you. Then when you get called on this you come here you admit to being banned because you were a troll, and yet claim you have no vendetta even though you came back there with sock puppets, twice. If that's not a grudge, then I'm Alan Greenspan. Robgea 16:30, 29 May 2005


 * On the Vandalism in Progress page, I apologize and note that I did indicate that a previous revision showed the original. As for the vendetta business, well you're free to believe what you want to.  I cop to my trollish behavior on SD.net and apologize to all who were offended; if that's not enough then we've got nothing more to say on the issue.  If you can add informative material that does more than just restate the opening hook, I'll change my vote yet again.  I doubt you can, though. --Rev Prez 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

(It seems I made this entry while I was accidently logged out. Figure I should re-sign it, so I'm not anonymous and can be checked up on. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC))
 * Keep - As stated by Iceberg3k, the site is no less notable amongst its fandom than 4chan or iichan are amongst anime fandoms. While the entry may need some cleaning up, it doesn't violate wiki guidelines from what I can see. If nothing else, even if it did deserve deletion, I don't believe that deleting a page after a VfD started in bad faith would set a good precident for Wikipedia. --138.130.219.71 00:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given the amount of work I've put into trying to fix the entry, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that this VfD was started in bad faith. --Rev Prez 02:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Fix"? The edit history is the smoking gun and puts the lie to your claims you're trying to fix the article. your edits are vandalism, pure and simple. Have A Nice Day.


 * Comment - care to point out this vandalism you attribute to me? Or is this aspie outburst for emotional effect? --Rev Prez 04:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given the simple fact that you are banned from the discussion forums of said site (And IP banned from the server itself?), you are clearly as biased a source of reference for this site as would be the webmaster himself. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)


 * Keep - If you delete this because a whiny little git wants you to then everything that's hated by a whiney little git will get deleted. --darthdavid (It was me, forgot to log back in)


 * What if said "whiny little git" changes his vote to marginal keep ? It looks like we can draft an informative, useful article about SDN (at least for all those Star Trek versus Star Wars types. Also, just curious, who the hell says "git?" --Rev Prez 06:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Delete articles about forums whose sum total contribution to humanity is some Star Trek vs. Star Wars fanfic. A Man In Black 09:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - I wouldn't be so quick to pidgeonhole the site in this way. The fanfic side of things is hardly the be-all-and-end-all of this site, though the fact that the article might suggest such a thing would be cause for its re-writing. I would be interested to know which revision of the article you were looking at when you made this vote, given the significant evidence towards Rev Prez having both made biased edits to the point of vandalism, and having started this VfD in bad faith. --Mukashi 11:08, 2005 May 30 (UTC)


 * Do you want to list any specific instance where I've vandalized the SDN page, or any evidence whatsoever that this VfD was started in bad faith? No?  I didn't thinkso.  But with all the bitching going on amongst the SDN members, you'd think SDN would send over people with a larger vocabulary than "the," "Revprez" and "vendetta." --Rev Prez 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep widely known sf site. JamesBurns 11:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now changing my vote to a permanent keep. The new revision is excellent.  There are a few NPOV issues, and now there's a framework for expanding on Wong's EvC essays. --Rev Prez 22:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - That seriously better be your last vote change. You're flopping around more than a bass in the bottom of a fishing boat. --Spanky The Dolphin 22:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - "That better be my last vote change" or what? Seriously, I'm looking back over the entry and besides the opening hook I see little more than a brief restatement of the STvSW article, some stuff about Mike Wong's political and social views as well as his personal life, and a self-flattering portrait of the forums.  I can't even say keep and merge; I just can't wring anything of value out the entry.--Rev Prez 07:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete wikipedia is not a web guide CDC   (talk)  01:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment We might aswell delete every article about a website, then.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment Bull. Nobody disputes the value of the Google and Slashdot entries anyway you slice it.  What's so special about SDN? PhpBB?  EvC? STvSW? Secular Humanism? Fanfiction? --Rev Prez 14:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you just a fucking moron or did you have to Dumbass U? You actually think Secular Humanism isn't worthy of having an article?  Fanfiction has an entry because its a noteable subject known by alot of people. PHPBB is noteable software.--Kross 14:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Aspies go nuts. ;) I mentioned PhpBB, EvC, STvSW, secular humanism and fanfiction as features.  --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment To put it politley, yes, yes he is a fucking moron, and yes he probably actually thinks that Secular Humanism doesn't deserve an entry. (What's even sadder, however, is that he actually went to MIT)--Robgea 15:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, there ain't no justice. --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thats the funny thing. Several people checked and according to them, they discovered that he never finished at MIT.  We're guessing he either failed or was expelled.  He uses the whole "I went to MIT" spiel as a crutch to make himself look smarter.--Kross 02:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe I've ever used the "whole 'I went to MIT' spiel." --Rev Prez 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per CDC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entry simply sounds off on a webmaster's views on life, Star Wars, Star Trek, and death. --Rev Prez 06:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and throw Revprez down a well.--Kross 07:49, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You gonna need to get your weight up, child. --Rev Prez 14:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, nn. Frjwoolley 02:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, it is nothing more than a vanity article as currently read. If not delete, major cleanup needed. Balancer 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't it be kind of hard to do a major cleanup, if it were deleted?--Kross 23:19, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The website is well-known within its specialty, and thus deserves its own article. Not to mention the one person rabidly pushing for this deletion apparently has ulterior motives. Neocapitalist 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a notable enough website within the fan circles to deserve its own Wikipedia article. (Vote is from User:Ryan Hardy)

Delete, notable or not, there's insufficient depth of material here to warrant an encyclopedia article. Aside from the description fo the main site and its forum, this is an article on a personal website: "over the years Mike Wong has expanded the site to cover other topics within his interests " The site is already linked to in Star Trek versus Star Wars; its basic description could be expanded there (as some of the other sites' descriptions are). Sockatume 22:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.