Talk:TheForce.Net
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2005. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
[edit] JC Forums
There should be more information on the forums itself as it is one of the odlest and largest forums on the Internet. Anyone here a member? You probably know me best as -Courtney- the Watcher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.232.75 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. The site's notable, but I don't think the boards are. Besides, knowing the JC, this article will quickly be filled up with board history, random trivia, and other non-notable information that would belong more in a thread in the JCC rather than an encyclopedia. Kolindigo 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delition noms
I don't understand all the comments in the deletion discussion saying that this article meets WP:WEB. The article does not contain any references to meet the criteria. -- Barrylb 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't take a position on whether it does. However, WP:WEB is a guideline. As such, the difference between guidelines and policies may be helpful in explaining some of the votes. Essentially, guidelines are more flexible.--Kchase02 T 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand people saying that it is notable despite WP:WEB but the comments that it meets WP:WEB are just plain wrong. -- Barrylb 10:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it correct. TheRealFennShysa 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have not given a reason. -- Barrylb 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Barry, I think notability of this site was decided by the community pretty clearly in AfD (otherwise, I wouldn't have closed it). While I took no position then as to whether the site met the guideline WP:WEB, I take one now. I have supplied a half-dozen links (which RealFennShysa inexplicably deleted) as evidence that it meets the guideline. Here they area, again: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The evidence here is pretty clear. Please do not replace the notability tag again unless you can come up with some rebuttal (either generally or to WP:WEB) to show that this site is non-notable. If you think my decision to close was somehow incorrect, you're always welcome to take it to WP:DRV, though I would discourage that unless you can provide some rebuttal here.--Kchase02 T 05:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I accept that the subject of the article is notable, but the article itself still does not assert notability. As it says in WP:WEB: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." This is why the notability tag is still appropriate. -- Barrylb 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Barry, I think notability of this site was decided by the community pretty clearly in AfD (otherwise, I wouldn't have closed it). While I took no position then as to whether the site met the guideline WP:WEB, I take one now. I have supplied a half-dozen links (which RealFennShysa inexplicably deleted) as evidence that it meets the guideline. Here they area, again: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The evidence here is pretty clear. Please do not replace the notability tag again unless you can come up with some rebuttal (either generally or to WP:WEB) to show that this site is non-notable. If you think my decision to close was somehow incorrect, you're always welcome to take it to WP:DRV, though I would discourage that unless you can provide some rebuttal here.--Kchase02 T 05:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have not given a reason. -- Barrylb 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it correct. TheRealFennShysa 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand people saying that it is notable despite WP:WEB but the comments that it meets WP:WEB are just plain wrong. -- Barrylb 10:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. I forgot about your edit summary requesting the same. I have added it. That being said, if you see that something necessary must be done, you should try being bold about it and do it yourself.--Kchase02 T 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
