Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Council Forums

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi Council Forums

I know I'm going to be unpopular with the trekies. Now, I conceed that Star wars is very notable (OK), and a page on the history of Starwars might be notable (OK?), and a page on a starwars fan-website might (just) be motale, and a message board from that website might be worth a passing mention in that article (possibly?), but a dedicated page with a detailed history of a message board of a website of a movie - is cruft. It is of possible interest ONLY to those involved, thus not encyclopaedic. --Doc (?) 07:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wrong. This is not fancruft. Fancruft would be of interest to fans in general. This is not. But the conclusion is the same: Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I admit I am a bit biased, having been involved to some extent in the writing of this history, but I notice wikipedia has a section for internet message boards. The JC is both the world's premiere Star Wars board and one of the world's largest bulletin boards, period. (See big-boards.com if you want proof. I believe we're still in the top 10.) If any message board deserves to be in wikipedia, we deserve it. I also notice some of our fellow big boards, including Gaia boards and IGN, have articles here. Dark Lady Mara
• You're definitely going to be unpopular with the Trekkies for conflating Star Trek and Star Wars, Doc. ☺ Uncle G 09:23:16, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Hello, my vote is delete, for contravention of WP:N, WP:V. I made an earlier comment that said the above less accomodatingly; I'm sorry. TO DLM, we'd welcome scholarly contributions from you and your colleagues; many of us feel the page under discussion is a violation of important policies on Wikipedia. Please understand this is in no way intended to be an affront to you, and we'd be glad to have good articles from you. -Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:59:50, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• I especially like the bit about the highly(sic!) intelligent members of the board, and delete, btw Lectonar 10:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but trim with chainsaw, seems notable for sheer size (the forums not the article!) and larger than many in Category:Internet_forums. Did anyone notice the bit at the bottom?
  • August 8th - Le Sammler has way too much free time and creates a boring history page about the JC on Wikipedia. It is just a joke!!!
  • August 8th - FlareStorm trolls Wikipedia

-- the wub "?/!" 10:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft. Nandesuka 11:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete do we need something like this. Where does it stop? How about Channel 4 forums, Battlefield 1942 forums, Warcraft forums, dating forums etc --SpaceMonkey 11:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not see why an article on this message board's history should be kept under any circumstances. It is simply unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to record the daily goings on of message boards-it takes an extraordinary interpretation of what an encyclopedia is to permit that. It fails Jimbo's verifiability test: if something was truly notable (and of such notability to be considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia) it would be the subject of independent study and/or reporting. Are there serious works on this message board (or any message board, really)? Has it been reported in the press for something significant? Are there sociologists or other scholars who study the board? Are there reputable secondary sources that one can use to write about the board? I mean, come on. This is an encyclopedia, and that's an internet message board. One's not going to be in the other. There is only one type of article that I can see having a rightful place in Wikipedia on the subject of message boards, and that is an article looking at message boards and how they are shaping or contributing to public discourse or forms of communication in developed economies. Not this.-Encephalon | ζ | Σ 11:32:43, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Strong delete Excerpts from aticle: "July 8 - Obi Anne and Rox are promoted to GSA's in Fan Force." and "April 17 - In a collaboration between the staff at TFN and the Fan Fiction authors and enthusiasts on the forums, the TFN Fan Fiction Archive Opens. While not the first mention of forceboat, Bib's "force boat parte!!!" was nonetheless the place where Forceboat came into its own." ...and there are hundreds of lines just like those and worse. Absolutely no reason to believe that anybody outside the forum itself would care about any of it. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for forums to record their members' comings and goings. Delete, the Force is weak in this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, cruft. Martg76 13:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn cruft.Gateman1997 14:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every website needs an encyclopedia entry. --NormanEinstein 15:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Quietmind I ask that those who are wanting the page to be deleted be aware that the current "article" on the page was not the right way to go for it. In addition to it being a problem in itself (it was lifted from another JC member's site, possibly without permission), as it was never meant to be used like this, it also lends itself to the sort of joke entries that have already been made. Unfortunately, the problems you see and are using as reasons for deletion stem partly from the very popularity that makes the JC as big of a board as it is. If I had my way, I would prefer to approach the JC and its history from a completely sociological and scientific lens. I'm interested in the sociology and psychology of internet message boards, and the JC has been truly remarkable in both areas. Instead of what has been used so far, I ask that you simply delete the "timeline" part of the article (which is what's so long, and causing other problems) and allow others to build the page back up in ways that will be of interest to anyone who wanders by, not just JC members or Star Wars fans. Unfortunately, a few people have taken a completely wrong (if well meaning) approach, and the result is an understandable desire to delete the page. As could be expected, a number of people have (or wanted to) added their relatively pointless entries ("Flarestorm trolls wikipedia", etc.). I ask that you not let this deter people who are actually interested in writing something that's up to wikipedia standards. The JC is a message board with a rich history, one that can be used to speak to both web life and real life. That is why I argue for it to be kept, and why I request that those who want it to be deleted reconsider their positions. Were you in our shoes, I think you would feel likewise. If you were able to see what a few of our members could do, I think you would agree that it would be a fine addition to Wikipedia.
  • You don't have to ask us to delete the timeline. This is a wiki, and you are a Wikipedia editor. Be bold! If you can improve the article to address the concerns of the editors who are in favour of its deletion, then you are encouraged to please do so right away. Uncle G 19:30:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how anyone outside of the forum itself (or even inside for that matter) can care on what date Larry Fett or Darth Friedman was promoted to moderator. This belongs on their website, not this one. -R. fiend 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not true. That's part of what I tried to say above. The problem lies not in the page itself, but in the approach taken in it. The timeline should be cut entirely. Just remove that and let a few capable people write something that other people *would* care about. You are basing your judgment on something that should not be there in the first place. Please observe the DeviantArt wikipedia page. That has been allowed to remain, and rightly so.
    • In writing about things that "other people would care about", I strongly recommend citing sources, such as (for example) news media coverage. Cited sources will lead you to things that people have cared about. Please be aware of our no original research policy and the fact that an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. Uncle G 19:30:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
      • Again, I ask how many of the other websites or forums that have wikipedia entries have been the subject of extensive media coverage? How many have merited independent academic study outside of wikipedia or other methods of online chronicalling? I can't recall seeing many books on IGN or DeviantArt at my library. Let's at least be consistent here. Dark Lady Mara
• Delete, just another fan forum and thus not a notable webpage. All the timeline removal in the universe will not alter that fact. Lord Bob 17:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you think it's "just another fan forum" and therefore not significant, I recommend you delete your entire section about internet forums for consistency's sake. Why are those other boards more "notable" than this one? Also, I do know as a fact that the JC has spawned ideas which influenced fandom and pop culture. Do you remember the cover of Mad magazine once featuring a fake Sith lord with an upside-down yellow lightsaber? That was a joke first invented on the JC which later spread around the fandom! Dark Lady Mara
    • 1) Being ripped off by MAD Magazine (and no, I don't remember the cover in question because I haven't read MAD Magazine since it started sucking, which was a while ago indeed) does not notability make. 2) I wouldn't terribly mind seeing some of the other forums we have here go either, but I don't care enough to go out and hunt them down and especially not to just satisfy a bunch of fanboys that their little slice of the Internet is somehow special. Lord Bob 06:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• "Just another fan forum?" It's the biggest fan forum in the universe!-LtNOWIS 19:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Lock, no, wait, Delete Forums are not notable, and neither are the ins and outs of who got promoted to moderator when and how. I could write a similar long and enthralling (to forum users) history of the Sluggy Freelance forums, and I'd still consider it un-encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 01:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Theforce.net following MSchlaf's edit. Extraordinary Machine 16:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, according to [1], this is the 11th biggest forum on the internet. It's got more than 19.5 million posts! If we get rid of this, we would also need to get rid of many other internet forums. See Category:Internet forums.-LtNOWIS 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as suggested by EM unless the sociological content Encephalon suggests can be added to give it useful content. That is, the article should describe what makes this forum unique - not what kinds of discussions occur in which part of the forum. The contents can be determined by simply opening the forum, which makes our article not terribly useful. --Habap 19:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, after heavy edit. That is a HUGE freaking message board, and again, compare with Something Awful. Definitely worthy of inclusion in the larger TheForce.net article, without all the boring crap about injokes and moderators and such. Hooper_X
• Delete. Let's encourage this kind of cruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - One of the many, no importance outside its subject matter - Skysmith 10:29, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.