Forum:TC:SuperShadow

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:SuperShadow

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, kept. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SuperShadow (talk - history - links - logs)

It's time to kill this article for the following reasons:

  1. SuperShadow is likely an elaborate troll. By maintaining an article on him we are helping him gain notoriety, which is what he wants.
  2. The article conflicts with Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects, specifically the section on webmasters.
  3. Maintaining an article with the singular aim of discrediting the subject in question is both unencyclopedic and unprofessional.
  4. It's not 2005 any more. Most fans know the information found on his site is false by now.
  5. All the redirects pointing to the article (as well as the article itself) can easily achieve the same effect of informing newbies by simply pointing to Fanon instead.

Relevant discussion: Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Mickey Suttle. --Imperialles 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete (redirect to Fanon)

  1. Per my reasons outlined above. --Imperialles 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. YES!! Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Far beyond a joke now. Continued exposure on this wiki serves his purposes more than it serves ours. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. What a mess JangFett Talk 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Can't believe we have an article on this.--ToRsO bOy 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Point 1, Point 4, and especially Cav's last comment, which should be applied to the majority of fan project articles when evaluating their usefulness, or lack thereof. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Please. CC7567 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Thank God. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. There was a time when it could be argued that we legitimately needed this. That time is over. Between us, TFN, and the OS, online Star Wars fandom has a robust enough infrastructure now that there's little chance Suttleisms can survive in the wild anymore, regardless of whether anyone "exposes" him. Let's put this relic to rest. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Mebbee redirect to his Darthipedia article, in the spirit of lulz? Dangerdan97 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    Per Imp, Cav, and especially Culator. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Just keep the article on his super-hot nonexistent girlfriend. Graestan(Talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Jard Dooku? He deserves to get deleted. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Per Chack. MauserComlink 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    Per Imperialles and Cavalier. Cyfiero 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Grunny (Talk) 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    We don't need another skeleton in the closet. Andykatib 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. I know we have policies, but I think this about moving on from the 2005 period and putting relics like this to rest. Give him a little corner in the fanon article. I believe that we're to blame for the opinion that he's notable. This isn't a mob mentality vote; it's very easy to step back from the furor and take a moment to think, wow, this guy is a nobody and is barely different from any other bullshitter who can start a website and make ludicrous claims. -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 09:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Get rid of this and place a small section into the Fanon article. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  20. Per Harrar and Culator. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 20:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  21. Nobody cares. –Victor Squishy Vic (talk page) 21:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  22. Yes Suck this SuperShadow!--T-Rex1 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  23. Per Cav and Harrar. There is absolutely no reason for him to have his own article. He only hurts our site since we have to waste our time removing fanon added to our articles by naive people who believe whatever he promotes. Cylka-talk- 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep; sadly, his site remains plenty notable. For my thoughts on the nomination reasons, see my comments below. jSarek 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think completely deleting the article is going too far. I think some information about the website and its misinformation should be kept for historical/encyclopedic purposes. The article may be too large for its topic and for that we can get rid of any irrelevant information. A review for NPOV may also be in order. But don't completely get rid of it. - Esjs(Talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Weak keep. A paragraph-long section in the main fanon article might be enough, too. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. After reconsidering, jSarek made a sad but perfectly valid rebuttal to the nomination criteria. Also per Esjs. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. I thought long and hard on this, and as much as I loathe SuperShithead, jSarek's points are perfectly logical (no pun intended to his username). Ditto Jonathan's per Esjs. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. I too must reconsider... I was unsure from the beginning for the very same reason jSarek stated above, but I actually felt that helping out SuperShadow's notoriety may have been worse off. However, as an encyclopedia, I don't think we should completely get rid of it. Besides, the article may help him gain notoriety, but it also exposes all the lies he posted on his website. It's fame for a bad reputation. In any case, per all of the above. Cyfiero 06:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So to say, despite what I said, the article should probably be reviewed for NPOV nevertheless. Cyfiero 06:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Muuuuuurgh 08:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. A notable website, note not webmaster, that needs to be known by all fans, not just those that knew of its existence years ago. He may gloat in his infamy but we are stating the facts. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per jSarek. It's keepable. It might need a bit of a rewrite per Imp's response to jSarek's response, but "being imperfect in its current form" is not a deletion reason that I support. Havac 01:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. He may be our David Irving but even Iving gets a page of Wikipedia even though he has done much worse that SuperShadow here. What those two share in common is that their claims have been discredited and only idiots accept them. Andykatib 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per all these guys above and below. Keep the article, but rewrite it so that it was about the website and not its owner. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 15:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Unfortunately, he's the most notable phony in the Star Wars universe. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Article needs extensive reworking, but not deletion. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Per the above reasons. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

To address the original nomination points: 1. As unfortunate as helping StuporShadow's notoriety in any way, shape, or form is, I don't think it outweighs the need for us to properly cover a notable website. 2. The article no longer conflicts with Notability of fan projects' section on webmasters, since we moved the article during the last VFD to the site rather than its owner. With the third point in the Notability criteria being covered by the site being mentioned in Star Wars Insider, his site meets all of the remaining criteria, as well. 3. The article's aim should be to inform, not discredit. However, StuporShadow's claims are so uniformly and brazenly false that being informative IS discrediting; it's not our fault that every single thing he has ever said is provably a lie. 4. Most current fans know he's a fraud, but Star Wars fandom isn't static, and we get new fans every day. We still get questions in the KB (and SH, from those who can't read) about his bullshit. 5. The redirects don't serve to discuss the site itself, which should still be covered here. jSarek 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • My redirect idea does. ;) Dangerdan97 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Only if Darthipedia replaces the page with "SuperShadow is a lying idiot who deserves to be boiled alive", or something like that, but more obscene. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My rebuttal(s): 1 & 2: The article as it is clearly deals with the webmaster and not the site itself. Even the opening sentence reads "Mickey E. Suttle is a controversial and infamous self-proclaimed Star Wars fan who posts so-called Star Wars news, images and FAQs on his website, supershadow.com almost every day, using the nickname of SuperShadow." 3: Yet the article has been a POVed mess since its creation in 2005. No one is interested in rewriting this in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. 4 & 5: That can be dealt with, as has been suggested previously, a short paragraph in our Fanon article. --Imperialles 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we redirect the article, but keep a small paragraph on Supershadow in Fanon article? MauserComlink 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I must comment that Supershadow really seems to be the Star Wars community's equivalent of David Irving, the Holocaust denier. Both have been discredited by mainstream sources. Why don't we give him the same cold water treatment as David Irving? Andykatib 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright. jSarek's main argument is that this is a notable website. However, this has no basis in policy. Allow me to demonstrate by highlighting the relevant contents of Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects:

  1. Content: A website must have substantial content. A fan project must be non-trivial (i.e. a completed fan film, a completed video game mod, etc.)
    • SuperShadow.com certainly has a lot of content, so it would appear to pass this criteria. However, this part of the notability criteria is meant to exclude sites from gaining articles, not qualify them. If we let every site with "substantial content" get an article, we would have to cover countless horrid fan sites. Furthermore, I do not see how SuperShadow.com qualifies as "non-trivial." Everyone agrees that the site is either an elaborate troll or a misguided attempt to get attention. The content is a joke at best, fraudulent at worst. It is utterly, utterly trivial.
  2. Longevity: A fan group, project, or website should have been in operation for at least six consecutive months.
    • Again, a criteria meant to exclude sites, not qualify them for articles. I could apply the same argument as above to this point as well.
  3. Media coverage: A fan project which has received at least national coverage in mainstream media can have its article kept, even if it fails to pass longevity or content criteria.
    • I really don't think Star Wars Insider is considered mainstream media by anyone. The criteria is clearly meant to apply to fan projects that has garnered attention outside of our secluded little fandom.

The other parts of the policy are either self-explanatory or irrelevant. So, notability criteria refuted. The existence of this article has no root in policy. Please consider this before you go applying your own arbitrary sense of notability to the article. --Imperialles 20:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how criteria 1 and 2 are meant to exclude and not include. If they were meant to exclude, then as I read the policy, it seems that no site would be notable unless it meets criterion number 3, which very few do, and many of our current fansite articles would be deleted, which is going too far. It is necessary to have both multiple exclusionary criteria and multiple inclusionary criteria in a situation like this; by your definition, 3 would be the only inclusionary criteria for anything other than message boards (5 appears to be inclusionary for message boards), which is going too far. In short, criteria 1 and 2 clearly appear to me to be inclusionary and will continue to do so until I am presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. As far as whether the site's content is "non-trivial," I think the repeated questions about his stuff (as jSarek pointed out in his original rebuttal) answer that question; StupidShadow.com's content will remain substantial and non-trivial as long as people continue believing it. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 21:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Alright. If not meant to exclude, then criteria 1 and 2 are certainly not meant to establish notability by themselves. They have to be supported by something else. Which, in this case, they are not. You cite "repeated questions" about SuperShadow content. Where? The fact of the matter is that SuperShadowisms are not the problem they once were. I consider myself an experienced Recent changes patroller, and I haven't seen fanon from this source in years. And even if you argue that the content is "dangerous" regardless, I see no reason why we cannot condense the relevant information into a short paragraph in our Fanon article. That would serve the the goal of informing newbies even better, as the information would be clearly presented, instead of hidden in an unnavigable mess of an article. --Imperialles 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 1 and 2 are clearly meant to establish notability by themselves. Take a look at these:

All of these are Official Friends of Wookieepedia, yet all are notable only by meeting criteria 1 and 2. Also look at two sections of TheForce.Net, another Official Friend:

Again, these meet only criteria 1 and 2. As the final nail in the coffin, look at one final fansite:

We maintain an article on ourselves, yet we only meet criteria 1 and 2. If that's not proof that 1 and 2 are meant to be inclusionary, I don't know what is. As far as "repeated questions about SuperShadow content," I have seen several such questions myself here in the KB. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I would have to respectfully disagree with you on Criteria 3, Imp. This is the Star Wars community. Star Wars Insider is most definitely mainstream media. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Master Jonathan, we've been mentioned by the Sci Fi Channel, The Times, Variety, Howard Stern (9_9), TOS, and the New York Times. I'm sure there's more, too. IMO, we are the most notable Star Wars site on the web, bar none. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, then I apologize for that. I couldn't find any of those in a Google search. My point above still stands, though. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)