Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net2

message: *COMMENT: BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE. Neocapitalist 00:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, would whichever admin closes this vote please note that votes are being solicited here, on their forums.  Please be on the lookout for anon IPs and/or votes from people without many edits (whichever way they vote). Nandesuka 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

message: Put arguments for keeping the website's page here.  This section is not the place to contest those arguments; do that below in the designated section. Neocapitalist 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Keeping Arguments

message: The fact that the article has been subject to past VfDs is not relevant. Furthermore, the circumstances of the individuals who initiate the VfD is not relevant; that is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. Tanizaki 14:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Keeping Arguments Rebuttals

message: If having over 2000 members were sufficient reason for a web forum to have a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would become a web directory.- It dose however show that the forum is big and there for notable. Though it may not show notability by its self it dose help show it. Elfwood 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Rebuttals (this section should be small enough to not be subdivided.

message: *Comment This article seems to fall outside of "articles that contain nothing but a description of the site and that seem unlikely candidates for expansion may be deleted for lack of useful content" context, however, at present it also does not fall into the "Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years" category either, would some enegetic wikipedian/'sock' go find something along those lines, bearing in mind that "National or international media attention means editorial content produced by a national or international news content provider, with particular weight given to off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters". Personally I have no problem with this article and can easily see that it's VfD history, revert wars and comments on its talk pages have fueled hostility that would have been better channelled in making it a better article, but has been prevented by this hostility. Alf 12:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment See the article's discussion page for my idea on expanding it.  This article clearly has room to be expanded and should not be deleted.
**If people coastally putting up VFD was a reason to delete any page could be deleted by a single user putting up VFD after VFD. Multiple VFD is not a reason to delete. Elfwood 21:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy. Neocapitalist 21:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore -- these have inspired me to rejoin the Wikipedia community.  :) Neocapitalist 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments go here. Seriously. 

message: *Gateman -> please read Alexa.
*SpringheelJack -> Please see your talk page.
*Neocapitalist -> nobody claims that WP:WEB is policy. People cite WP:WEB as an indication why this website is not notable.
:Ignoring other indicators of notability.  Neocapitalist 17:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses