Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starmen.Net 2

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 was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starmen.Net[edit]

Article is unsourced and reads like a fan-listing ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The article is also on the verge of violating WP:SPAM. Cremepuff 222 (talk, review me!) 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fan site. Caknuck 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Starmen.net is actually very well-known to anyone who has played Earthbound and has done great things for the community around the game; however, I don't think it's notable enough for WP. --Dariusk 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's actually a highly notable fan-site (it's been mentioned in gaming magazines several times, well known to many gamers, including those that haven't played Earthbound). I also don't see how it's on the verge of violating WP:SPAM. Besides, if you find any unsourced information, then get the sources, or contact the writers of the article and ask them to find sources. --Kurotsyn 04:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) • contribs) 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Aside from the fact that this article has been unsuccessfully VFD'd in the past, no one seems to recognize or respect its cultural significance. It has made multiple petitions to Nintendo, the petition in 2003 having had a large response, and has been mentioned in multiple popular offline and online publications and blogs. If you have a problem with sources, then like Kurotsyn said, you should ask the writer of the article to give you the sources. This page is not an advertisement, and it's not a fanlisting. --Numanoid 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a notable site. It has been mentioned in many places and magazines, and is relatively well known. --Grilox
Keep. As others have stated, it has been mentioned by many publications, Hyper (magazine) for example has mentioned it atleast half a dozen times throughout it's 150 or so issues.Atirage 13:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to have enough notability. Article could use a little cleanup. Metamagician3000 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.