Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starmen.net

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 of the debate was - Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.net

Waste of bandwidth. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:44, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 03:44, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Not notable. jni 06:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not necessarily a waste of bandwidth, I wouldn't say the same of disk space. --fvw * 06:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
It was notable enough to voters to survive VfD in March. As for "waste of bandwidth," the article's length can be attributed to expansion to try to meet Wikipedia standards, see Talk:Starmen.net. (And we know the hard disks are cheap policy.) No vote yet, but I'll post the previous debate below. Samaritan 07:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fairly notable website. Survived VFD previously. Significant contribution to video game culture. Also, probably one of the earliest fansites for the game, and home to a rather monumental petition. Keep. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to stick with my old vote. Delete as not notable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Weak Keep. If it was notable enough to survive last time, it's probably still notable now. P Ingerson 08:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep—marginally notable and an interesting companion article to EarthBound. Everyking 10:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. #1 Google hit for "earthbound", so the site is evidently popular, and the history section establishes notability quite well. The article really should be trimmed, though; most info outside of the history section is useless. Fredrik | talk 12:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa rank now down to 202,484. 7 del to 4 keep? talk about just barely surviving last VfD. Definately should go this time. Niteowlneils 16:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, 6 to 4 (the final vote from User:J.J. was cast in May.) Samaritan 18:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete not notable, or merge a sentence or two into Earthbound if someone wants to. Cdc 19:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think its notable for having had an effect on Nintendo and having been mentioned in some of the gaming magazines. Also, note that I edited the page significantly and moved it to Starmen.Net (the difference is the 'N' in 'Net' being capitalized, it wasn't before). I think the article is much more in line with the standards of Wikipedia now. modargo 20:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep. The only "waste of bandwidth" is this growing conversation. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 23:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, don't be rude. Keep in mind that I nominated this before this edit.
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. If people who play whatever game this is want to know where to go, among my suggestions wouldn't be "Wikipedia." Geogre 23:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Indrian 07:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We've been over this before. Heck, if we delete this, why not delete all wikipedia page that have to do with specific websites? Yes, why don't we do that? --SMWhat 18:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That would be because they're more notable than this one. That said, I'm throwing SM.net a weak keep. - Vague | Rant 05:44, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
del Mikkalai 00:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This vote was accidently placed below with the votes from the previous debate. The timestamp shows it belongs here. Indrian 06:31, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, informative, notable Dan100 22:34, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, informative, notable. Andre (talk) 00:23, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Previous VfD debate

[Early votes are obviously based on a substantively different version of the article.]

Alexa rank is 60,000+. Unofficial fan site. Not notable. Meelar 05:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Delete - EarthBound has a link to it, which is all that is called for -- Cyrius 05:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Going to have to agree with you. No need to explain the site; it does that itself. shadow 06:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Starmen.net has actually made quite a splash concerning Nintendo. Miyamoto even mentioned its petition to release Mother 3 in an interview. Also, in Nintendo Power issue 145, the fanart section (I forget what it is called) mentioned that a lot of people had drawn EarthBound pictures--"and it's not even a theme month!" This was because of Starmen.net--the staff asked visitors to draw EarthBound pictures and mail them in at a certain date. And besides, there are individual articles about certain popular webcomics, why not idividual articles about a popular site? --SMWhat 05:55, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. I'd add all this to the article, but I am SWAMPED with schoolwork, and unable to make more than minor/smallish edits at a time.
- Keep for now. Quinwound 07:54, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: looks like an ad and not much more —Tkinias 08:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's not great and still a bit of an advert but much better than it was. Of interest to Nintendo players perhaps. -- Derek Ross 15:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep (well, I'm leaning towards "keep"). Given the edit activity on this article since its inception I get the distinct impression that the starmen.net website is some sort of "troll heaven" and I think it would be useful for people considering using the site to have this issue covered here in an NPOV manner. (However I've seen no mention of this facet in the article yet, though I admit I've only skimmed it.) - Hephaestos|§ 17:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. EarthBound is enough. ⇒ whkoh [talk] 09:34, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let Earthbound link do for this. - Wguynes 20:18, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
delete, nonnotable --Jia ng 19:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
delete, this sets a bad precidence. --User:J.J. 10:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (note: this was added after the actual vfd was done; see this diff)[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.