Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Shadowscourge

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

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 delete (12-8, minus 5 meatpuppet votes from Shadowscourge) - Sikon [Talk] 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Shadowscourge

Nominate and abstain delete for cabal reasons. Notable? - Sikon [Talk] 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Delete the article, but add the link to our List of fan sites --Rudy 04:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Delete. Insufficiently notable at this time. We're here to report and explain notable things, not promote or create them. jSarek 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete as it's just not notable at all. Besides, what are they going to do besides complain? Lucas Licensing knows about SuperShadow, but if they try to shut him down then they'd be breaking the basic principle of free speach. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete Havac 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete, unless our intention is to list every fansite out there (which it isn't as far as I'm concerned.) —Silly Dan (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Delete, but perhaps mention in the Mickey Suttle article. RMF 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Delete, the site just isn't notable. Why take a stand on such a inane topic?--Sentry 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Delete. The article has been edited mostly by (I'm assuming ) Shadowscourge forum members and comes across as a cross between advertising and a vanity article . Alternatively, add to List of fan sites. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 19:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Delete and add to List of fan sites and/or Mickey Suttle per previous voters. It's not NPOV-compliant, it's nothing but POV. -- Darth Culator 22:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sikon [Talk] 19:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Delete. The purpose of this site is not to provide free advertising to fanon sites. LSUAdman 05:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Delete as per above comments. - Lord Hydronium 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep

  1. --MyNz 5:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jasca Ducato 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. KEJ 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. NKSCF 1:54, 1 June, 2006
  5. Riffsyphon1024 10:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sato Stars 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep. If we have an article on SuperIdiot here, we should have this as well. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep. Looks good --SGCommand 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep. Has been updated a bit, looks a lot better than before. Cmontheplane 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (less than 10 edits)
  10. Keep. Shadowscourge has as much of a right to have an article about their site on here as the people who created the Mickey Suttle/SuperShadow article. Jaxon1680 09:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (first edit) (only has edits here and on Shadowscourge)
  11. Keep. Like it was said if Mickey has one then his opposite should have one. Dan Loto 11:49, 8 June 2006 (first edit)
  12. Keep. Not only is this against SS, but it's also a Star Wars site in general with an interesting history. They also need to clear their names from their accusations.ShinGarudaS 04:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (first edit)
  13. Keep. But it needs a serious rewrite and be combed with an NPOV comb. -- SFH 05:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect

Merge. Even though the article does tell the history and status of the site, it is only relevent to an article which has been given as much attention as it should have. -User:Remoh, aka Shmucky Dales: member of ShadowScourge.

Comments

Keep. We could join forces with them because we share one thing: We oppose SuperShadow. MyNz 5:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • To SuperShadow intolerance, notability one give does not. - Sikon [Talk] 07:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If we have an article on SuperShadow, why not one on his enemies. Especially since he actually admits to lying to them. Jasca Ducato 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • We could form an alliance, something like the real-world Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis, Allied Powers, Warsaw Pact, NATO, Non-Aligned Movement, Organisation of Islamic Conference, etc. We formed an alliance with a German-language Jedi fan website so I think we should form one with Shadowscourge. MyNz 9:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It needs an overhaul, though. KEJ 09:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Theoretically, we AREN'T against StuporShadow. We try to maintain a neutral point of view, and that definitely doesn't include forming an alliance in opposition to a website. Of course, on a practical level that NPOV is hard to come by with a blatant liar like SS, but that doesn't mean we should just completely give up on our ideals of neutrality over him. He's not worth it. jSarek 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Keep it. NKSCF 1:55, 1 June, 2006
  • I vote to keep assuming this becomes more popular and a force against SuperShadow. It's quite entertaining to watch from afar. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But what role does Wookieepedia want to take? Do we want to become advertisers for each and every startup Star Wars message board that wants to gain traffic, or do we want to only list sites that are already notable? While this site may become popular in time, it's not there yet... not by a long shot. --Rudy 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I personally feel we should stay out of any conflicts like this. Endorsing the actions of this group may make us as an encyclopedia look bad. No matter how much all of us here hate Suttle (I know I don't care too much for him), we should try and remain neutral and not partake in attacking him personally. As for this article, if we choose to keep it, it should be majorly rewritten to conform to NPOV and the Manual of Style. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly. jSarek 21:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it should stay here, but definitely be re-written. Ther are other websites showing the falsehood of SS but this is the only forum out there that is completely dedicated to it. cmontheplane 23:37, 4 June 2006
  • We record notability. It's not our job to create it. The intention of bringing down SS is good, but the subject is outside our mission. Get rid of it. Havac 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Shadowscourge has as much of a right to have an article about their site on here as the people who created the Mickey Suttle/SuperShadow article." -- Here, I disagree. Micky Suttle is notorious among members the SW community, and as such deserves his article here. To not recognize SuperShadow and his impact on SW culture on a SW encyclopedia would be a bias on our part, regardless of the fact that we all hate his guts.
  • Mickey Suttle is just watching in delight as his fame grows. But besides the fact that this is an anti-shadow site, we must remember that it relates to Star Wars in general, and people have some misunderstood the site's purposes. It should also be on to help people understand that they haven't done what they're accused of (such as hacking SS' original myspace profile). After all, if SuperShadow has an article, why not his enemies?ShinGarudaS 04:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Many of these 'Keep' votes seem suspicious. A quarter of them were cast by users that have only made one or two edits in total. Jaxon1680 tried to vote twice! Can we check out the IP addresses for these accounts to make sure that they are not sockpuppets?--Sentry [Talk] 05:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • excuse me, but that second vote was by my sister. she didn't want to register here to just vote for one thing and be done, so i let her use my account. we only have one computer, so its not like she could post using a different IP address just to make you guys happy.
        • If your sister doesn't want to bother to register and actually contribute to this site, then she shouldn't be voting. Also, why would someone have more than one account to contribute to a wiki unless they are a spammer? Farming for votes and using multiple screen names to vote are good ways to turn this community against you and also makes the members of your site look bad. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 06:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • i never said i had multiple accounts. i only have this one, that's why my sister used it instead of a new one. she isn't a member of Shadowscourge either, though i have tried to get her to join. she voted because she feels the same way about Suttle as everybody else, but she isn't online as often as i am so she doesn't think its worth her time to register here just to vote on one thing. and i believe you are the one who said something about it being mostly Shadowscourge members editing the main article...of course its mostly 'scourge members editing it. we want to keep it, so we have been editing it to try to fit your standards.
            • Forgive me, I never meant to accuse you of anything. I was simply pointing out that the vote count was suspicious. The entire purpose of these votes is to attain a consensus among contributing members and I think it is fairly obvious that that is not occuring here. By the way, StarNeptune was likely referring to you deleted comment: "what's the big deal about people voting twice? have you ever thought that some people have more than one account on here so they can vote multiple times?" --Sentry [Talk] 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that some of the votes are suspicious, however, Wikia policy typically doesn't allow IP checks except in cases of vandalism. Besides, they're more likely separate members of the forum who read about this vote on some thread over there and decided to pitch in – which would technically make them meat puppets. RMF 05:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you other people who want it to be re-written go in and edit it to your liking, and then the Shadowscourge members can come in and add in what you might have left out that we think is important? Then we wouldn't have to have this discussion about deleting it because it isn't neutral. Besides, my sister was right...Shadowscourge is the only site that is truly out on the front lines fighting against Mickey Suttle's lies. Why should the entire article be deleted just because it isn't completely neutral? An article for a site against someone or something can't be completely neutral and still get the point across. Its just not possible.
    • Well, a couple of other users and I went to Shadowscourge to do some research so we could rewrite this article, but apparently you have to have an account to view anything there, even the guests and visitors sections (!). One of us tried to create an account, but apparently new accounts have to be approved by the site admin. I don't know what you guys are hiding, but I'll just say that it's pretty hard to rewrite an article when you don't have access to the source material. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 07:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is set up to have an admin validate new registrations so we don't have another incedent like the Xanatos thing. We don't want just anybody getting on there and being able to suck up to the other admins to get power to change things and then delete everything. Just put in your registration and an admin will authorize it when he has a chance.
      • Also, if you don't have a sense of humor, don't register because some of the things we mean as jokes could be taken seriously by people who don't know us and haven't spent time on the boards. And I don't understand why the entire article was deleted just because you couldn't view most of the information on the boards. Why couldn't you just leave it how it was and then edit it once you got registered and looked at all of the stuff on there?
        • You no longer need to register to view the boards. I talked to one of the admins and he opened up everything for the guests to see.
          • That is good. Now I can see what goes on there...hmm...~looks around~. Hmm? What's this? A blatant call for vote farming? You do realize that this practice is frowned upon by this community, correct? We normally remove those votes, because your blatant vote stuffing skews the results of this VfD. Technically, as an admin, I could close this VfD right now and start a new one banning all Shadowscourge members from voting, but since I have gotten myself involved, it would be an abuse of power on my part. I'll leave it in the hands of one of the other admins to decide how to proceed with this. On another note, I also like how you admitted to voting twice on that thread. Real nice touch there. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I never said anything about voting twice. Read it more closely. I said, "everybody go vote to keep it. i already voted once, and i don't think they would look too kindly on me voting again and that part about the article being edited by mostly 'Scourge members...DUH!!!...WE WANT TO KEEP THE ARTICLE, OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA DO THE MOST EDITING!"...nothing about voting twice. I was saying that I didn't vote twice because you people would frown on that. And its our article, I was just trying to get the other people on there to vote so we have our site out there for all to see. And besides, you got your way when you deleted everything on the article. Why bother with this voting if the main article is now gone?
            • "You do realize that this practice is frowned upon by this community, correct? We normally remove those votes, because your blatant vote stuffing skews the results of this VfD." I get the feeling that you wouldn't care if I was calling for everybody to vote for the article to be deleted since that's what you want to happen.
              • If a vote for deletion had a lot of very new editors or single-issue editors appear on either side, I'd be suspicious no matter what my feelings about the article. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
              • No, even if you called for everyone on Shadowscourge to vote delete, it would STILL be against the rules, because it would still be stacking the vote. Vote stacking is vote stacking, no matter which side you're on. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Hmmmm.... Seems very biased from a very nuetral point of view. Supershadow is allowed his space here, (in which you have acknowledged his falsehood), and the mere thought of a fansite which is run by it's fans, are trying to get a space on this site, only to be denied because some here believe it to be of bad taste. I have, and many other people on Shadowscourge have been fans of this site for some time. It is quite unfortunate that this site, in which we support has outright denied it's support for us. Your reasoning for keeping Supershadow on your site and deleting Shadowscourge is in every sense, a contradiction to your so called freedom of speech and is irrational at best. If Shadowscourge is not allowed to post a page here, then I would ask that Supershadow's page be removed also.
                • Our choice of article inclusion is based primarily on notability (at least re: websites and fan-related topics). Supershadow has an article because of his undeniable impact on the SW fan community – however, it seems doubtful to me that Shadowscourge has reached that level of notability. As I mentioned above, I think the best approach would be to delete the Shadowscourge article, but move its contents into a new section on the Mickey Suttle page and tie it in as part of a "Fan reaction" paragraph or such. Also, I don't think there would be any objections to placing Shadowscourge on the List of fan sites page. Please try not to take opposing views personally, believe it or not we are trying to be objective here. RMF 05:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Its been two weeks and, by one vote, the result is keep. Can someone archive this page and end it now. Jasca Ducato 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, the vote farming votes do not count and so, if we end it now, the result will be delete. I'm more than happy to do this, however. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Why delete? Which votes are invalid? - TopAce 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • What do you mean "vote farming votes"? Jasca Ducato 13:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
          • "Vote farming" is when you get "meatpuppets", ie. people who don't actually contribute the site, to vote the way you want them to. So therefore all the people who have made no edits to other pages, or this was their first edit, do not get to vote. Thus, the votes of Cmontheplane, Jaxon1680, Dan Loto, and ShinGarudaS do not count. We know that these are vote farming votes because we saw the thread telling people to vote on the Shadowscourge boards. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Go right ahead and delete it. We don't want anything to do with you people anymore anyway.
  • All this bickering is pointless, we've been at this for over two weeks like Jasca Ducato said. Why don't we just leave the page be at this point and as more information and sources come in, edit it from there. But what my question is, why the page was edited down to a meager paragraph? Isn't wookieepedia supposed to include an abundance of knowledge in it's articles? That's what the page was, at the time that is.Sato Stars 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What is the rush? There is a very good reason why the vote has not finished; the discussion (bickering as you call it) is not over. Anyway, as Jaymach stated above, if the voting was ended now the article would be deleted NOT kept.--Sentry [Talk] 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Even so, the article can always be rewritten and I am aware that you can block the creation of it. But even if it is deleted, when shadowscourge does get bigger and more notability, it will be recreated, yes? But all I'm saying is that it remains the way it is, and as things progress, it can be added onto. As we speak, some of my friends on shadowscourge are forming "alliances" if you will with other websites. Big ones with notability. Even if the article is deleted, I will continue to contribute to wookieepedia, I value Star Wars above all else. Therefor, I leave this subject in the administrator's capable hands. -Sato Stars 11:07, 15 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delete the Shadowscourge article. We don't want our site to be associated with you people anymore. —Unsigned comment by Jaxon1680 (talk • contribs)