Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CraigMonroe (talk | contribs) at 22:08, 8 November 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spacebattles.com

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Spacebattles.com (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Contested PROD with "fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable forum/website, nothing is referenced, no chance of anything being referenced", however it was contested. I wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning. I don't see any reliable independent third party sources, nor do I think there will be any. My googling has not found any as of yet. Fails the Alexa test (~190K), if that happens to be your thing. Doesn't rank highly on Big-Boards either. Delete as failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just what would qualify as a reference? It is possible for facts to exist without having an outside website to reference them. And SB.com is linked to other websites. The Alexa rating itself isn't Wiki policy and shouldn't be grounds for deletion. And SB.com does rank well on Big Boards when you check things other then the first stats. And it just so happens that SB.com is owned and run by Kier, one of the primary developers of the VB Bulliten Board software. It should be noted that things far less notable have their own pages. Such as individual pages for minor characters in rarely watched TV shows. Alyeska 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Our Misplaced Pages:Verifiability official policy excludes facts that exist without any outside source. And "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The infamous Argumentum ad Pokémon has long since been refuted, as shown below. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pokemon Rule, i.e. there is an article for every Pokemon in existence. Also, SB is central to the Star Trek versus Star Wars community. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • When you can cite the same range of in-depth sources about this web site that are cited at Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references, you can validly employ that argument. Of course, you will have at the same time cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied, which is the argument that you should be making here (but are not). Until you cite such sources, that argument will not hold water. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• If you check Big Boards again, you will notice SB.com ranks 307 on the post to members ratio. For its size SB.com is incredibly active. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just to make sure my opinion is in the open. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Gotta catch em all, Pokemon!--Kross 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• None of the editors wanting this article kept have presented any valid arguments for doing so. Your weapons are sources, sources, sources, people. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments such as the above, you won't make a case for keeping this article. This is not a vote. Arguments based firmly upon our Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines are what count. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable website; Misplaced Pages is not a web directory for advertising fan sites. Supposed Pokemon "rule" is fallacious. Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground.Bwithh 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Bwithh. This is simple advertising for a non notable website, which has nothing special associated with it. The pokemon argument is fallacious. The simple fact that some event, and some bit of information has been created or occured, doesn't automatically qualify it for Misplaced Pages. The event, whatever it is, must have some recognisable intrinisic value. This article doesn't. scope_creep 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the one who prodded it- I stand by my previous statements. --- RockMFR 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no independent sources, so fails WP:WEB. A web site's existence and use by a community does not mean it gets a WP article. The website must be notable to someone outside of it's user base. WP is not a replacement for Googling the best place to post about your "thing" --Steve 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per a lack of reliable sources to verify anything. No indication of meeting WP:WEB. --Wafulz 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - All Google hits for Spacebattles.com hit WP/Mirrors/their site/random forums. NN fails WP:WEB Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone citing the current rules, care to explain something to me? Stolen Sidekick met your requirements and it got deleted. So apparently your little requirements are a farce. Might as well be truthful here and admit that you would vote deletion regardless because you simply don't want the page. Alyeska 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Uncle G has already covered "If article X then article Y" above. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A lack of verification from reliable sources and no assertion of notability during the article's 15 month lifespan point straight to WP:AUTO/WP:COI, original research and a failure to understand what wikipedia is not. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, WP:WEB. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is a well known website in the scifi 3D modelling community, and is very popular with even non-modellers who just want to download good looking space movies. Honestly it is a well known and significant site. However having just visited there again (not been there in a while) I didn't realise how unupdated it is these days. Ben W Bell talk 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. To Ben W Bell, the original Spacebattles.com website hasn't been updated for a while, but if you google it, you will find that Spacebattles forums are third in the listing. There are many obscure items that are kept in Misplaced Pages. Douglasnicol 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is "well known and significant" as you state, then it should be easy for you to cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. They are your only arguments. Not citing sources isn't going to make a good argument for keeping the article. Neither are bare personal testimonials prefixed with "Honestly". We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. Uncle G 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure. Google "spacebattles.com", there are 31,900 hits, and the vast majority are from sites other than spacebattles.com. It's referenced from many places on the net, that's a sign of popularity. Ben W Bell talk 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You haven't cited a single source there. You've counted Google hits. Counting Google hits is not research, nor is it a reliable metric of popularity (which isn't the metric for articles on web sites in any event). Once again: Please cite sources. If the subject is "well known and significant" as you state, then this should be easy for you to do. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An active forum with over two million posts is quite notable. -Toptomcat 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Big Boards it's currently ranked 383 in the world based on the boards, with almost 3 million posts and over 9,000 members. That seems relatively notable. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Our criteria are WP:WEB, which (quite rightly) make no mention of counting posts. Please cite sources, as has been asked several times already, if you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article fails to cite to verifiable independent sources that confirm the importance of this site, as required by our criteria, and previoulsy correctly noted by Uncle G.-- danntm _C 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons stated previously. CraigMonroe 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates