Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caelestia.net (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Caelestia.net[edit]

Not notable. --fvw* 02:35, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, and most likely promotional in nature. DreamGuy 10:19, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisement. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:46, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
language has improved, but formatting, grammar and spelling still need work. I'll remove my vote, and abstain. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing encyclopedic here. jni 13:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the problem with the article that makes it an advertisement? I am not in any way affiliated with Caelestia.net and I added the channels as "notable" because they are the biggest channels on the network. I was trying to document them, not advertise them. If the article is that "un-encyclopedic" can we just remove the parts that you consider bad. ScrollMaker 18:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • "Caelestia IRC" gets 1,550 hits on google.
  • Delete The article offers little an was only added in response to a rather unplesant set of ad homina that were once placed there before... I would as happily see it vanish here as anyone Falerin.
    • I have reformated it to match more closely that of DalNet and EFNet to eliminate the concerns for advertisement I would be interested to know out of pure stylistic concerns what remains wrong with it. ... oh and change my vote to Keep Falerin 17:52:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Account created to vote on VfD. --Improv 06:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Your logic seems flawed as I am the current form of the articles author I think i most certainly should have an opinion about its existance or not... Further I did not create my account specifically to vote on this article. or I would not have commented against persons voting in my favor anonymously below I reiterate my vote Keep Falerin 21:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep: It's much better now, please reconsider you vote for deletion. ScrollMaker 01:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Note: ScrollMaker is a young account with few edits outside of VfD and this article. --Improv 06:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Therefore what? My opinion counts the most on this article? ScrollMaker 21:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • The reverse, I'm afraid. A user who has very few edits is very likely to be so new that they don't really understand the deletion policy and make mistakes like "The subject is a wonderful thing, so of course that translates to keeping an article on it!" Not to mention that lately we've had a problem with users who put out calls in other fora, telling people "Come here and vote the way I want you to on this subject so that we can outweigh all the other people who are voting from more experience with Wikipedia standards!" which is, I'm sure you'll agree, unfair. Of course, I think Improv should not be as hasty as he has been recently in concluding that such votes are automatically invalid, or that accounts were created to vote; AFAIK it is at the discretion of the admin who counts the votes to decide whether votes are credible enough to count. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Comment I assure you I have never contacted anyone and asked them to vote in any way. I have had my account for a while and have been reading Wikipedia articles for even longer, I just hadn't started editing articles until a few weeks ago. I fail to see how, "The subject is a wonderful thing, so of course that translates to keeping an article on it!" should not be a reason to keep this article. After all, this is a poll on whether this is notable or not and to me it is notable.
              • Comment It seems that as time progresses VfD has become progressively more a place to express personal opinion on whats worthwhile to people other then oneself. There are very many reasons actually listed in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy for removal of an article. While notability is a topic matter of discussion elsewhere, in related documents, it is not given anywhere as a actual reason for deletion in that policy and yet it seems to be the most common reason articles are deleted. When in doubt don't delete is stated as a guideline for deletion, yet many seem very anxious to clear out everything they consider not worthy. As such, I begin to appreciate the satire noted in Wikipedia:Extreme_article_deletion and the related Wikipedia:Votes_for_extreme_deletion page. The buisness about experience with wikipedia standards is relevant but it also seems to be missing much of the original point of Wikipedia which would seem to suggest that if someone wanted an article so badly and the article was at least encyclopedic it should remain. Maybe someone should produce some sort of appendix obscure information Wiki that only contains articles considered to be obscure or of limited local interest and does not allow topics broad enough to have yet made it into the genereal encylclopedia. Of course, the problem there is that standards still have to be maintained. Falerin 13:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure, Keep it
    • Hmmm anonymous votes from 143.206.249.146 dont count Falerin 03:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Its fine now LilianaAlcott 04:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Account created to vote on VfD. --Improv 06:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Where do you get this this? At the very least This person can be shown as participating in talk history on the 20th of November and the article was first posted on VfD 8 days later...so do not strike out valid votes....I also fail to see any rules whatsoever that say not to create an account to vote.. rather they seem to suggest that anonymous votes are not tallied so in fact you MUST create an account to vote. Falerin 21:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I think that perhaps you shouldn't accuse an account of being created to vote on VfD if it was created before the matter came to VfD at all. Factitious 10:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Not sure if it's notable or not. --Improv 06:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's at issue here is not anon voting, but the worth of the article. Non-notable, and is there a call for research on this group? I didn't think so. hfool 03:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. 124 hits on Google. Article admits that it is a small group. Ergo, not notable. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 03:46, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
    • Notability and size are different things. I realize that the topic seems non-notable to some people, and I would like to know their reasoning. Please elaborate on why this IRC network is not notable. Factitious 10:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article says that it was the "official chat location for several games including Fallout 2, PlaneScape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate." That sounds fairly notable to me. Factitious 10:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. anthony 警告 18:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caelestia.net_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1137667005"