Forum:TC:SuperShadow (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:SuperShadow (second nomination)

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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. Graestan(Talk) 18:11, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

SuperShadow (talk - history - links - logs)

Hey, it's this again. Time to end this nonsense article for good. Why? I'll tell you.

  1. Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects specifically states "If a person is recognized purely for creating and/or maintaining a Star Wars website or other fan project, he or she is not considered notable enough to warrant an article." This article is in direct conflict with that policy.
  2. There is no reason why a short paragraph in the fanon article cannot serve to warn inexperienced users about SuperShadowisms.
  3. Maintaining an article with the singular aim of discrediting the subject in question is both unencyclopedic and unprofessional.
  4. It's not 2005 anymore, and SuperShadow is no longer a big deal. Why give him the time of day?

Relevant discussions:

Do not add additional options to this Trash compactor discussion. --Imperialles 16:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Merge relevant information with and redirect to Fanon

  1. Hell, it's about time. --Imperialles 16:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Ditto.—BobaFett1 Bounties collected JasterMereelsSigil-TESB 17:25, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 18:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Imp. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Yawn. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 19:20, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Arguably met the old notability rules during the last TC, but doesn't come close to the new rules put in place since then. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:46, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Cylka-talk- 20:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  9. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:13, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Victory! -- 1358 (Talk) 04:46, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  11. JangFett (Talk) 01:19, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:34, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Qwo 12:27, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. The article meets our notability guidelines and should be kept. See comments for elaboration. jSarek 00:11, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I can't believe I'm doing this. See comment below. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Keep and move to SuperShadow.com. Like it or not, the site has fan recognition, and just because we don't like the guy doesn't mean we can delete the page. Havac 21:40, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Notable enough for an article. Also, just because an article is crap doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because an article is well-written doesn't mean it should stay. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  5. ASDF1239Chiss Ascendancy-DISCUSSION- 01:04, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Keep. Good for setting some of the more deluded fans straight. -- SFH 01:06, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  7. This has official recognition, being mentioned in Star Wars Insider, as well as major fan recognition. -LtNOWIS 04:17, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per Fiolli. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:19, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Notable, per above. - Lord Hydronium 05:06, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Gosh, SuperShadow trash compactor vote? again? --Skippy Farlstendoiro 12:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Jinzler 14:20, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Per NOWIS. Nayayen—TALK 09:55, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Per Havac, Jsarek, and NOWIS. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 20:07, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Enochf 20:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I don't think anything has changed since the last nomination. The article meets the notability of fan projects guidelines for a website for the same reasons it did in the last TC; if the fact that the article is at SuperShadow instead of SuperShadow.com is confusing the issue, we can move it and toy with some of the wording further, but it doesn't warrant deletion just because SuperShadow's persona and his website are so closely wrapped up in one another. We're also not maintaining the article for the sole purpose of discrediting SuperShadow; it's not our fault that simple fact-checks of the vast majority of claims made on that site turn up lies. And it doesn't matter if it's not 2005 anymore; SuperShadow is still out there and is still being maintained as a site that meets our notability criteria. jSarek 00:11, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree with jSarek because, in truth, I could easily make a substantial case for this to be retained solely on the merit of the notability requirements as they currently stand. At the same time, I see little reason to give this so much play and would love to see it deleted because of our own personal biases and perceptions. Look, policy is policy; and, because it meets the notability requirements, it should be kept. If we bend the rules just for this, then we are adhering to a double standard, and I'm not quite willing to intentionally open up that can of worms. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:28, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Likewise, I would argue that the article as it is does not meet the notability requirements. As for tweaking the article, it won't happen. That issue has been brought up since deletion was first proposed, and the article has changed very little. No one is interested in improving this. --Imperialles 04:50, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • I already went through and tweaked it once, though apparently not sufficiently to forestall yet another TC on it. You're right, no one wants to work on it; who wants to write about this crap? That doesn't mean it's not notable and article-worthy, though. jSarek 04:54, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna remain neutral in the voting. Considering that on TOS, he's referred to as "He Who Shall Not Be Named" gives his article merit, as much as we would love to get rid of it and see the inane comments from anons end. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:51, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd like to ask the active admins: do we still get a lot of SuperShadowisms from the newbies? Back when I was active, almost all of the fanon was "original" nonsense. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Not nearly as much as we did back in the day, when you couldn't sneeze without an anon trying to add a Jard Dooku or Yoda D'Kana the Whill to an article. There's no doubt that SuperShadow is less of a factor in fandom than he used to be. jSarek 05:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)