Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: New Voyages

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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was withdrawn. (Please see original nominator's withdrawal of nomination [1]). — Mike • 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The AfD had already reached concensus before it was withdrawn. JRP 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter; a withdrawal is a withdrawal is a withdrawal. — Mike • 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: New Voyages

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft, per Star Trek: Mirror Wars, Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Star Trek: Spock's Hiatal Hernia, etc., etc., ad nauseum. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this particular nomination. — Mike •  19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable and verifiable to me, especially given the involvement of D. C. Fontana and Walter Koenig. --Allen 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that we want to delete the fancruft, however this may be the only Star Trek fan fiction that I think merits inclusion in Wikipedia, due to the large number of professional Star Trek actors and writers which are participating in it. JRP 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is the only one of these Star Trek parodies/fan productions I had ever heard of before tonight. It has gained tons of notice inside the Star Trek community and elsewhere. BigDT 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Important enough to worth an article Roadrunner 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Koenig's involvement. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, you have about a minute between the timestamps on some of your Star Trek-related AFD votes. Are you examining the actual topic/article or are you just voting delete without any effort to check to see whether the particular article warrants inclusion? BigDT 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have checked out each article. Quit trying to undermine me by suggesting I'm not doing my homework. Erik the Rude 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, he probably did what I sometimes do. I examine a group of pages throughly, then then come back and AFD them once I've got a view of the situation. Timestamps are not evidence for this kind of accusation. - Motor (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm (AND endorsed by the Roddenberry estate), I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for professional involvement ... this is not fancruft. Daniel Case 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable fan series which has had appearances by former Star Trek cast members (i.e. Walter Koenig.) Tachyon01 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why do you have the "prepare for ballot stuffing" comment? There's none of that going on here and I think we've demonstrated the beginning of a concensus that this one should stay. I wonder somehow if that isn't somehow wishful thinking on your part. Please don't take these things personally; this one may stay but many of the others that you nominated probably should go. JRP 05:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• See the accompanying edit description for link to a diff in which an above voter solicits ballot-stuffing from a relevant WikiProject. I wouldn't put it up just for the heck of it. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - well-respected fan series --Polaron | Talk 05:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This one is a major production that is notable on several levels, from being approved by Roddenberry's estate to being written by noted SF authors, to having cast members from the original series appearing on it. 23skidoo 05:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This fan series seems to be a few rungs over the normal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. fancruft at least, a cynical marketing tool for the Trek franchise at best. Tychocat 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a popular series. "Not allowing fiction to take over Wikipedia" does not equal "all fiction must systematically be removed from Wikipedia". JIP | Talk 08:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of all the fan series this is one to keep. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is THE Star Trek fan series that has even enjoyed guest stars from the original shows. If any fan produced material is notable then this is it. Ben W Bell talk 09:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I absolutely do not think this was a bad faith nomination (as was suggested above) because Wikipedia has vast tracts of fancruft that need clearing out... but in this case, I think it *just* manages to justify an article. - Motor (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Guest star involvement swings it. Just. -- GWO
• Strong Keep - Not just some random fan fiction. This stuff is big, and was featured on the cover of Wired magazine --DennyCrane 09:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Definately one of the biggest fan films out there. JusticeCEO 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This series has a lot of support from Trek veterans (And other pros) from both sides of the camera. It was notable enough to be on the cover of "Wired", it was mentioned on "Talk Soup" and was featured on G4. Also, it's very popular with the last sull-length episode being downloaded 16 million times.

• Oops, forgot to sign. That last comment was by me.--Captain Proton 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, widely known project with major actors (Koenig, William Windom) NawlinWiki 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known and has received a great deal of media attention, and is a major event in Star Trek fandom. Nick Cook 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; Slap me purple and call me a meat puppet, but this is notable IMO. See above for less 'colourful' arguments. Colonel Tom 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. SJennings 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable fan film, this is also another exception, getting media attention is more than notable. If it was featured on the cover of "Wired" magazine and downloaded 16 million times, the film is definitely notable. --Terence Ong 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not that my vote is needed obviously but this article definatly is not fancruft. The support alone from the actors says enough. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely a notable subject with major actors participating, and noted within articles in recognized media (as is Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and a few others). --Mhking 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the most notable of all the Trek fan series, as evidenced by the Roddenberry stamp of approval, the involvement of original series cast and crew, and the major media coverage. TheRealFennShysa 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. — Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable fan project. The Wookieepedian 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep How many professional, original series actors does a fan film have to be before it's notable? My answer: fewer than this one. Vadder 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable fan project, with professional participation. (Not that my vote is needed.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep by analogy with WP:MUSIC per GWO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Professional involvement (in addition to the several previously mentioned actors, they also have writers from cannon Trek), use of set pieces by Star Trek: Enterprise, featured in Wired and G4. -- Hawaiian717 18:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The only fan film that has the blessing and support of Eugene Roddenberry for the continuation of his fathers work.User:vtcrusade
• Weak Keep Making an exception here due to involvement of Eugene Roddenberry and professionals Bwithh 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipedical (talk • contribs) 23:23, June 6, 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The fanfilm which has very notable Sci-Fi writers/producers/directors involved, as well as the blessing of Eugene Roddenberry, and involvement of original Star Trek actors (William Wimbledom, Walter Koenig, George Takei and others). Also New Voyages is mentioned in the official Star Trek website as shown here: George Takei Video Interview wanderer 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Found this very interesting. and notable. Ghostieguide 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Voice of Treason 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per involvement of Fontana and Koenig, mass media attention, etc. Gildir 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Insanely strong keep - what's up with the mass deletions movement on clearly notable entries? DillPickle 21:35, 10 June 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.