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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dimension Fortress[edit]

Super Dimension Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability as defined by WP:PRODUCT. I can find no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, in particular no relevant matches in Google News (many matches to the anime series of the same name for which this BBS was originally named after). All current references in the article are self published. Since the previous AfD discussion over five years ago, there have been no independent sources added to establish notability and there is little prospect of this situation changing. If the basic information is credible, it may be an option to merge, at least a mention, of the BBS into The Super Dimension Fortress Macross which at the moment appears to make no mention of it at all. Ash (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks like there are no references out there to prove notability, it has been 5 years since last AfD as Ash pointed out as well. The only thing that strikes me is why no needs reliable references tags were ever placed on this. Im going with delete because I trust the nom's findings (Or lack of). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but then redirect to Macross, which is almost certainly what anyone tying this into the search box is actually looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted Dabify since it could mean either Macross or Robotech, and it is definitely not assured that it would be Macross that is primary. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• sigh... I've been a freeshell user for many years, and it's a rather significant ISP, web host and shell provider from a computer historical point of view, but I can kind of see that it couldn't really survive a strict application of the notability guidelines. --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of things out there im sure that people would love to see on wikipedia that fail notability guidelines here, there is a chance however that references can be found in the future and remaking an article around new info takes time but is worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep On their website it says its called that. As the article says "is one of the oldest and largest nonprofit public access UNIX systems on the Internet." That makes it notable. Does anyone doubt that statement is true? Dream Focus 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim that, it doesn't make it so. Boasts from the people involved do not make something notable. This is elementary stuff here, such a claim requires reliable third party sources to prove it. use some of that common sense you keep suggesting other people use. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I used Google and found that "freeshell.org" has 98,500 hits and just "freeshell" has 121,000. I see no reason to doubt the statement of Slashme, who states its rather significant, nor that of those who edited the article in years past. Need to check to see how many people have used it over time. Dream Focus 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as you already know, the number of google hits are irrelevant. Reliable Third party references are the only sufficient evidence. Not google hits, hearsay or conjecture. And Slashme has admitted it's difficult to prove notability. No one is doubting anything, but it needs to be proved. Per pretty much the entire history of this wiki. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 21:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and takes the name of the well known starship macross. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just another run of the mill, unnotable website. Recreate as locked redirect to Macross per Andrew and IP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm seeing nothing here that would pass WP:NOTE or WP:WEB. The article lacks any reliable third-party sources, and a Google search doesn't turn up any either. Would recommend recreating as a redirect to The Super Dimension Fortress Macross as a possible search term. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability requirements are satisfied by Stephen Jones of SDF being interviewed in BBS: The Documentary (itself a "notable" work apparently.) This also backs up the facts stated in the article. The only valid point I see here is the name confusion with SDF Macross, which could and IMO probably should be resolved by renaming this page to "Super Dimension Fortress (computing)" or something. 94.192.228.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 December 2009 (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.