Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stardestroyer.net (2nd VfD)

message: *'Comment' "For those calling this a vanity website. I guess you missed the points that SD.net is directly related to the STvsSW discussion (which has a Wiki entry) and SD.net has related sections ranging on other topics." Yes, topics which include the web site owner making fun of those who disagree with him in a public way, as well as several links to topics which contain his personal viewpoints and opinions. "It is not a vanity forum entry because it includes information on more then just the forums." Personal viewpoint information, outside of the discussion forums which, as I said before, are merely a sounding board for the owner and those who agree with him to make fun of those who disagree, with low brow tactics such as showing said persons email address rather then allowing them to remain somewhat anonymous, prompting other forum members to harass the person. Some choice gems from this 'non-vanity website':(From 'Darth Wong', aka Michael Wong, website owner) 'Perhaps it's time to make a page dedicated to RevPrez and put it on the main site? That will give it a higher Google ranking than a rant here. Perhaps somebody here can collect all of the relevant information. And does anyone know what his real name is anyway? RevPrez is a stupid ******* name.' Is there a REASON to let a site like this have its own article, especially since it's ALREADY linked to the only relevant topic (ST v. SW)? mike_castaldo 11:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment There are no 'personal attacks' here other than the ones YOU keep perpetrating against this article, your opposition here, and Wikipedia itself with your desparate and messy defense of this frivolous and quite frankly stupid VFD (screw you very freaking much ComCat!) 	 
-	This is now nothing more than a smear campaign by Castaldo against his opposition simply because he's losing the argument and badly with his broken analogies between SDnet, SB, and various old-timey Ford cars. He's painting logic and reasoned argument as 'personal attacks' when no such distortions are in any way justified; simply because he's losing. E. Sn0	 
-
-	:Comment All right, Castaldo. It's time for a SmackDown. Your entire position can be condensed down to: "Stardestroyer.net is not specialized enough for my tastes. Why can't we just merge it with the general topic page? There's no reason to actually put a page on Wikipedia when we can actually link to that page from the main topic. Besides, the forum users called me names; they're mean, and so is Wong, which means I can dismiss his entire site as personal opinion."	
-	:The reason for these 'personal attacks' you keep hypocritically insinuating is the fact your entire opinion has no logical basis. Why should specialty be a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia? Especially when on the Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ, it clearly states the goal of Wikipedia is a comprehensive free internet encyclopedia. Stardestroyer.net, as has clearly been shown, is a vast repository of knowledge and analysis of the SW-v-ST debate.	 
-	:Apparently, part of your reason to vote against it stems from the fact much of it is opinion. I submit to your attention The Best Page in the Universe as another example of opinion; clearly, there is a precedent for opinion-based websites being included in Wikipedia. What you seem to be unable to grasp is all of Mike Wong's "rants" are supported opinion, not merely statements of opinion.	 
-	:You also fail to address the educational quality of the site. From the main page, I refer you to this quote:	
-	::"Despite its facetious overtones, this site is an academic discussion of Star Wars, Star Trek, and real science. It is intended to entertain but also to educate and to encourage debate."	 
-	:Chew on that for a bit. There is no reason a site which possesses not only entertainment value, but also educational value should be deleted from Wikipedia. Take a look at the Essays section. You won't be able to find an essay which is unsupported. Same with creationtheory.org: I challenge you to find one serious essay where Wong does not back up his opinion with facts.	 
-	:Now look at the Science portion of his page. This is the basis of the entire site: a series of factual pages dealing with the nature of science. Is there any way this is not educational? Your squealing about personal opinion is nothing more than a red herring.	 
-	:The reason we don't give pages footnotes in the main topic threads is because those pages, because of their intrinsic value, warrant their own Wiki threads. This is a fact you don't quite seem able to grasp. Stardestroyer.net ought to be included as a distinct Wikipedia page because of its importance in the SW-ST debate, its educational content, its entertainment value, its essays, and its sister site, creationtheory.org. Neocapitalist 20:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prior to Jul. 30