Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starmen.Net (2nd nomination)
- 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, reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
This article on the main Earthbound game website has no assertion of notability, which in this case would involve article talking about the website and other coverage, which seems not to exist for this website. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as you can see from its previous nomination, it has had two years plus to get any of this information it needs to assert notability, but that stuff is no where in sight. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CCC User:Krator (t c) 10:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. SharkD (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here we flippin' go again. This site, is notable. It's been mentioned and focused on by many respected blogs and magazines, it's given petitions to Nintendo, as well as the numerous call-ins and mail-ins that Nintendo has taken notice to. Aside from the article needing to be cleaned up, regardless of how long the entry has been in this state, there is no reason for deletion. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of its community and standing as a major fansite of an, albeit obscure, game series. We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Make up your minds and quit reaching for reasons to delete this article. This is the fourth time already. Numanoid (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have stuff, then start putting stuff in the article already!! It takes four AFD's for people to bother to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Numanoid (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Wikipedia: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like how both of you can talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk. You could be helping to improve this article, but it's easier just to delete it out of hand, isn't it? And with Alexa rankings too, the most useless of all web metrics! You should fill out your argument with a few sock puppets so you can be completely certain that this scourge of a website that doesn't even have the word "wiki" in its name will never rise again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.129.81 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On AfD the burden of evidence rests with those defending an article, not with those opposing its inclusion. It would be utterly counter-productive for people to spend time and effort improving an article that they fully believe should be (and quite possibly would be) deleted. If you want this article to remain you should be adding references to non-trivial mentions by reliable sources that verify information the article contains and solidify its inclusion in Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD states "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin"--therefore, the way to save this article is to resolve the absence of references to non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. As WP:V states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We don't give a fig for references that might be in an article, only ones that are there. GarrettTalk 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I like how both of you can talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk. You could be helping to improve this article, but it's easier just to delete it out of hand, isn't it? And with Alexa rankings too, the most useless of all web metrics! You should fill out your argument with a few sock puppets so you can be completely certain that this scourge of a website that doesn't even have the word "wiki" in its name will never rise again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.129.81 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Numanoid, your behaviour is just uncivil. Calling people ignorant isn't helpful to this debate. If you think the website is notable enough for Wikipedia: then improve the article with decent sources and so on. If that can't happen, the article could be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I don't know who reviewed your article before, but the article cannot stay like this. Now find a featured website article, or a good article if there isn't one, and look at the formatting, and build up this article a bit, because there is a reason it continues to be nominated; it sucks, and it has established no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We tried talking about the website, you guys called it advertising, we tried toning it down, now you're calling it non-notable. Numanoid (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very simple: There are no references to reliable sources to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.