Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon

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. Those who opine 'keep' have not addressed any of the concerns raised. WP:NOR trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon

Inconsistencies in the Star Trek canon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Computerjoe's talk 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, yet another indiscriminate collection of fancruft. No references, and no assertion of the notability of Trek inconsistencies. —ptk✰fgs 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although it might need cleaning up. Yes, it's fancruft, but that has always been a weak reason for deletion. Let their fans have their fun. It is a big deal among them to point out these inconsistencies. It would be better to recommend sourcing their statements which they have by referring to the episodes. Even if it's only notable among Star Trek fans, it's still notable. MrMurph101 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOR. There are books that have been written about this topic ... it's notable ... but this article references no secondary sources at all. BigDT 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, then the solution would be to source the books about this and therefore rectify the OR issue and thus provide verifiability. MrMurph101 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This article really needs a total rewrite, though ... I am occasionally accused of having a poor imagination, but I'm having trouble seeing much salvageable here. There are multiple inconsistencies on every episode. A laundry list of them is going to be ... well ... a book. BigDT 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say then to only use the major inconsistencies. The nit picking ones can be noted and refer that there is a book that chronicles this. MrMurph101 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - silly fancruft, of which we have waaaaaaaay to much. MrHarman 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not only fancruft and not notable, but when would this article stop? No doubt inconsistencies in the Star Trek Universe (given the vast number of episodes of the various series) extend well beyond the present coverage and are probably too numerous to list. How would one decide what the 'major inconsistencies' were? . Its a fictional universe guys- it isn't perfect, get over it! WJBscribe 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep Pretty crufty, but there are reliable sources that have been written about this. There have been books written about the Roman Empire, Talleyrand and Enguerrand de Coucy as well, but we can still have encyclopedia-length articles on them as well. Now someone will say: that means we have to keep Inconsistencies in Manimal as well. No it doesn't: not until someone writes a book on those inconsistencies. JChap2007 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This AfD may highlight a larger need for wikipedia to examine the encyclopedic value of delving into the depths of fiction just because someone somewhere wrote about it in a book once.--Crossmr 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The notion of coherence in science-fiction universes (of which Star Trek and Star Wars are the best known) is a question that has generated much debate and this debate is culturally notable. Among other things, recall the episode of "The Simpsons" where several "nerd" characters interrogate Krusty on the coherence of Itchy and Scratchy (or something like that). There are also many, many videogame articles that address issues far cruftier and less notable than this one (Star Trek has a much larger following than most videogames, for instance) Allon Fambrizzi 07:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

  The article makes no claims of such notability and there is no reference of secondary sources which suggests this is the case. What you are proposing is original research (WP:OR). --Quirex 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Psiphiorg 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MrMurph and Allon Fambrizzi. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. VegaDark 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep as above This is the sort of article an encyclopedia is for. Compiled and useful information about major cultural works. DGG 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete the ultimate problem is that this is an indescriminat collection of information (WP:NOT). Multiple, third-party sources do exist so notability and verifyability issues could probably be met by clean-up rather than deletion. Eluchil404 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete None of the inconsistencies are linked back to secondary sources. None of the inconsistencies are verfiable in their current form and I doubt they will be til someone starts their own page about each and everyone. There is no citation in the article other than citing the exact episode something was claimed. You have cite the literature that CLAIMS this is an inconsistency, otherwise this is original research. Is the whole article repeated by those 3 secondary sources? Surely there is a usenet faq which documents every single one of these. Currently this fails WP:OR. --Quirex 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not enough that people claim sources exist, there needs to be some indication that they really do exist and will at some point be properly cited in the article. I see no edits to the article since the AfD started... no reason to believe anyone is actually interested in addressing the OR problems. --W.marsh 15:43, 8 December 2006 (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.